Lee Enfield Rifle

[TonyE]

I agree with your comments about the .280 Ross cartridge. It had performed very creditably in both competition at Bisley and also as a game cartridge. Whether it was quite suitable as a military cartridge as proposed by Sir Charles is an unknown now. The calibre was right as was the performance, but what it was like for barrel erosion etc. in a military environment is questionable, as this was the main problem with the P.13.

I am not quite sure if you were recommending the Ross M1910 itself, as this was not a "Mauser" type action, but essentially Ross's rip-off of the Model 1900 Mannlicher action. And we know how good that was in a military environment!

Again I agree with your comments re: cock on opening, and although I don't normally go in for "what ifs" but a P.13/14 in .280 Ross would be an interesting beast to put through the trials.

Regards

TonyE

[emlyn]

Just a quick question here, did all pre ww1 mk III smle's have the mag cut off? or did it depend on manufacture.

Emlyn

[TonyE]

All SMLE Mark IIIs had the magazine cut-off. It was when the Mark III* was introduced in late 1915 (formally introduced January 1916) that changes were made to simplify production.

These included the omission of the cut-off, long range dial sights, windage adjustment on back sight, lug on firing pin, trigger guard swivel.

Post war proiduction went back to Mark III standard and there are a few "hybrids" around.

Regards

TonyE

[MikB]

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.

Nitpickin' here, but in my belief it was the harmonics of the floating barrel, the rifling twist and the mass distribution in the 174 grain Mk.VII bullet that produced this performance, despite the springiness of the action rather than because of it.

Regards,

MikB

[Incitatus]

Good day to you all. First post for me.

I collect weapons and for various reasons the N.1 Mk.III appealed to me. First it represented, in a fairly substantial way, the British Empire at the height of its power. Being something of an Anglophile this was a powerful consideration. Secondly, I had shot a Jungle Carbine for ages and had owned one since I was 16 (I am ages older now ) and I had found the .303 to be a fine cartridge so any addition in that line was more than OK by me. Finally, an this sounds a bit odd I know, I came accross a 1906 pattern bayonnet and I thought "boy, it would be just swell to have the back half of this thing". I am only admitting this because this is the internet and therefore largely anonomous (unless, evidentially, you are a US serviceman).

So today I took a spin to a great large gunshop here in rainy Connecticut. I felt good. I knew they would have what I wanted without need of a phone call. Long story short they had one SMLE for $149. I looked a bit at it but didn't really examine it in detail. I knew (you remember) that on this day of days the weapon would be right.

Having gotten it home and done a bit of research (in so doing finding you fine folks) I wonderously found that the metal was about 100%!!!! No rust, no dents, clear marks, nice finish. Did I mention that the numbers matched? They did, down to the clip. The stock was a bit of a different story. First it was DIRTY. There are some dents, not too bad considering it's age (it is dated 1917 --a good date also BSA was the maker). The spot where the regimental disk should be has a hole. A very nice British hole surely but a hole nonetheless. Hmmmmmmmm....... The buttplate is banged up a bit.

Interestingly, there is no magazine cut-off though the slot for it is there and the wood of the stock is high enough to cover it. I had read that this was fairly common at the time of the manufacture of this weapon since it was around this date that the III* replaced the III.

Now I wonder ... why is it so good? I don't deserve this good fortune, I throw pillows at my cats when they sing to me at 4AM. Part of me believes that some guy assembled this from new parts and personally stamped then with matching numbers.

Anyway, I am thinking of getting a new brass regimental tag but I wonder if this might not mislead some poor sod who will own this after me.

If anyone is interested I can post pictures.

Cheers.

[TonyE]

First, welcome to the Forum, I hope it gives you many hours of interest, information and pleasure.

With regard to your No.1, you are correct in saying that it is not uncommon to find "hybrid" versions with the cut-off slot but no cut-off. I presume your rifle is a Mark III*.

By 1917, marked butt discs were not in use, as captured rifles provided valuable intelligence to the enemy if regimental details were stamped. If yours has the hole, it should either have a blank disc fitted or be plugged with wood.

All the best,

TonyE

[Incitatus]

First, welcome to the Forum, I hope it gives you many hours of interest, information and pleasure.

With regard to your No.1, you are correct in saying that it is not uncommon to find "hybrid" versions with the cut-off slot but no cut-off. I presume your rifle is a Mark III*.

TonyE

Good morning.

There is no "*" after the mark designation. I get the impression (after reading some of Skennerton's book last night) that this weapon might be right on the cusp. That is to say that it has many/most of the modifications associated with III* but that that designation had not yet been adopted.

Incidentially, I read that the stacking swivel was for naval use. What is the deal with it? I have seen precious few rifles illustrated with that swivel.

[Incitatus]

These included the omission of the cut-off, long range dial sights, windage adjustment on back sight, lug on firing pin, trigger guard swivel.

Regards

TonyE

Another interesting thing... the rear sight on my rifle has a windage adjustment screw. Also, the rear sight has one serial number that is struck out with a cleanly incised line. The new stamped number matches the others on the weapon.

[Garron]

Hi,

Does any pal have info about the evolution of .303 stripper clips, as i have read somewhere that they army trailed ones similar ones to the russian mosin-nagant clips in the early 1900's (I think), but for the life of me i can find the source again and its starting to annoy me, a lot.

Thanks

Garron

[TonyE]

The British did indeed trial a .303 charger that was based on that for the Russian Moisin charger. During the war British ammunition companies made millions of rounds of 7.62 x 54mm ammunition on contract for the Russains and also made the Russian chargers.

Companies making 7.62mm chargers included Kynoch, Greenwood & Batley (both of whom were making ammo), Bullpitt, Wm. Mitchell, J. Mitchell, Pugh, Myers and several others.

The normal .303" charger had progressed by then to the Mark III and was constructed of fairly substantial spring steel. Bullpitt & Son proposed the thinner steel Russian clip should be slightly reprofiled to fit the .303" cartridge case head as an economy measure. A number were manufactured in 1917 but the idea was not adopted.

I did actually have one once, but was mugged of it by Herb Woodend (of the Pattern Room) almost as soon as I acquired it. They are the proverbial rocking horse merde these days.

The Mark IV .303" charger was introduced by LoC 19786 of October 1917 and had only four holes in the side instead of five and a longer spring, making it less stiff and easier to load than the Mark III. Had the Russian style charger been introduced it would have become the Mark V.

Pictures of a typical British made (Greenwood & Batley) 7.62mm Russian charger attached.

Regards

TonyE

[Garron]

Thanks Tony, that great, i was just about to lose the marbles i had left as i couldnt find any info on it.

Cheers

Garron

[TonyE]

Just had a trawl through my collection photos and forgot I had these. Will have to use a couple of posts because of size.

Here are the four marks of .303 charger accepted for service, Mark I to IV, left to right.

See next post

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

...and here is the experimental Russian style .303" charger.

TonyE

[Garron]

Great pics, thanks Tony,

I have a mk3 charger and i was wondering, were they used in ww1?

Thanks

Garron

[303man]

CHARGER CLIPS

The charger loader clip, made of steel, was introduced in 1903 for use with the Lee-Metford Mark II rifle so that 5 cartridges could be loaded faster than by single loading. Many of the early Lee-Metfords in Service were modified to add/improve the charger loading system and enable charger clips to be used. You will often see the modification date on these rifles. The basic charger clip design did not change for the .303 cartridge and was produced until after WWII. Cartridges in charger clips were often carried in leather/webbing/canvas bandoliers. A new design charger clip was introduced for the 7.62 cartridge.

The Mark I charger clip can be easily identified. Its base has 4 oblong slots without ridges; the sides have 1 oval and 2 long oval holes and there are three oval pips on the side. The side end is not cut to form a spring but has a pip on the inside to retain the cartridges. It was not until 1921 that this clip was made obsolete for Naval Service. (L of C 11753 & 24376)

The Mark II can be divided into two variations. It was introduced in 1906, it had the same 4 oblong base slots but with three ridges to improve it’s strength. The side had 1 round, 2 oval, and 1 long oval holes together with the three oval pips. One side end on each side was cut to make the end into a spring stop; this retained the cartridges until needed and then improved the releasing of the cartridges. The numeral ‘II’ was marked on one side of the charger. The second type of Mark II only has 2 oval pips on the side. (L of C 13465).

The Mark III charger was introduced in 1916, it had 4 round holes in the base and 5 round holes on the sides. There were no ribs across the bottom and the side pips were changed to circular. It is Marked ‘III’ and continued in service until sometime after WWI. Some Mark III’s are found marked ‘I’ to ‘V’ with a makers code ‘GM’; these were made in Italy at the end of WWII. (L of C 18973)

(fig 1 3rd from Left clip)

The first Mark IV clip was introduced in 1917 had 4 round holes in the base and 4 round holes on the sides. This allowed for a longer spring on the side, which made it less stiff and easier to use. It is marked ‘IV’. Unmarked examples of this type have been found without the base slots and the spring end is shaped but not cut through.

The second type of Mark IV has 4 round holes in the base but 3 round and 1 oblong holes on each side. There are three ways in which this clip is marked; some have ‘Mk IV’, some ‘Mk 4’ and some just ’4’. This charger clip continued in use until after WWII.

(L of C 19786)

The Mark V was a WWI prototype clip, which did not go into general service. It was smaller and without holes being cut into the sides. It was designed like a Russian charger clip that was being made at the time in England.

Over 50 companies manufactured charger clips in various countries. Some companies are easy to identify, such as ‘BP’ for British Pens Ltd.; others, ‘CWS’ not so easy and still not known. I would like to thank Herbie Woodend at the Pattern Room (Nottingham) for his help in identifying a lot of the makers.

[TonyE]

Great pics, thanks Tony,

I have a mk3 charger and i was wondering, were they used in ww1?

Thanks

Garron

Yes, the Mark III was introduced in February 1916,. See above post for LoC details.

Regards

TonyE

[Guest pgm12]

Hi all. New member here. I have purchased a 1918 III* Lee Enfield about 2 years ago. Under the date it has the letters S HT. L.E Can someone tell me what that meens? Thanks.

[peter__m]

These are some super posts!

Thanks guys...

[Incitatus]

Hi all. New member here. I have purchased a 1918 III* Lee Enfield about 2 years ago. Under the date it has the letters S HT. L.E Can someone tell me what that meens? Thanks.

Short Lee Enfield

[2ndCMR]

Nitpickin' here, but in my belief it was the harmonics of the floating barrel, the rifling twist and the mass distribution in the 174 grain Mk.VII bullet that produced this performance, despite the springiness of the action rather than because of it.

Regards,

MikB

In fact the 'compensation' occurs in No4 Rifles converted to 7.62 x 51mm and other calibers, so the peculiarities of the .303 slug cannot be all of it.

I have heard of a rifle club chap who has recently converted a No1 Rifle action to 5.56mm and is doing exhaustive tests to determine its "compensation". Yes, it does it in 5.56mm as well!

The barrels of the No1 and No4 Rifles are not free-floating, if that is what you mean by "floating". When properly bedded the barrel is supposed to bear down against the wood of the fore stock at the reinforce (under the chamber, right in front of the receiver) and at the muzzle for about 2" back from it.

The L39/l42 barrel is free floating forward of the reinforce.

The record for aimed rounds fired in one minute from a Lee Enfield rifle is 44. That is from the prone position with stacked chargers beside the firer. The bolt being gripped between thumb and forefinger and the middle finger used as the trigger finger.

A storm of lead.

[Smokey in Oz]

This fantastic thread deserves pics of the appropriate bayonets for these rifles.

Pictured below from the left is.....

Pattern 1913 bayonet, dated 1916, manufactured by Remington in America.

Pattern 1907 bayonet, dated 1943, manufactured by Orange arsenal in Australia.

Pattern 1907 bayonet, dated 1909, manufactured by Sanderson in Britain. This bayonet has matching serial numbers between bayo & scabbard & still has the original hooked quillion. While cleaning grime off the scabbard I found a name & date in the leather, David Ford Nov 1916. I got a copy of his service record which puts him with the Australian 22nd at the Battle of Bullecort, he returned home to Australia shortly after with severe shell shock.

Smokey.

And here they are...... naked.

[3rdID]

Forgive my ignorance but what is the purpose of the quillion?

[Smokey in Oz]

Forgive my ignorance but what is the purpose of the quillion?

I can't tell you sorry, I suppose they decided it had no purpose because in October 1913 (from memory) all quillions were ordered to be removed as the bayonets came in for repair.

I did hear that the quillions got caught in the clothing & webbing of the opponent and that was the reason for removal, I've also heard this story is not true so who really knows.

Smokey.

[montbrehain]

The idea of a Hook Quillion was to enable you to entangle the other persons bayonet blade and then snap it off ? How you do this in the middle of a life or death bayonet fight is beyond me . Also I have seen bayonets flex and bend , so I dont know how far they would go before snapping. If at all. "MO"

[Bombadier]

The hooked quillion is a throwback to fighting swords and daggers when it was, as stated above, used to trap your opponent's blade and break it or disarm him. It eventually dawned on somebody that sword and bayonet fighting were two different animals!

I believe it was not only found to be of no use in bayonet fighting but was also a positive nuisance as it hooked on webbing, wire and anything else you can think of which could get in the way, both when in the scabbard and on the rifle.

Nigel