Just curious, what do you see as the shortcomings of the Pattern 14? It was supposed to make the SMLE obsolete, until WWI got in the way. They did carry over a very similar sight arrangement onto the No.4, the only major advantage I can see is the extra five rounds in the magazine.
British use of the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.III (SMLE) with mag cutoff during WW2
- Thread starter mkrnel
- Start date
Just curious, what do you see as the shortcomings of the Pattern 14? It was supposed to make the SMLE obsolete, until WWI got in the way. They did carry over a very similar sight arrangement onto the No.4, the only major advantage I can see is the extra five rounds in the magazine.
This is an old myth. The worst equipped units in the Red Army (especially at Stalingrad) did not lack rifles, but ammunition.
Except for their allies like Romania, Italy, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Hungary, or neutral countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Turkey, or countries they had not yet invaded, like the Soviet Union and Greece.
And large numbers of M1917 Enfields.
kennymo: The higher performance cartridge of the P13 was supposed to obsolete the SMLE. As a platform for the .303 the British obviously were not overly impressed- maybe overengineered and with no real advantages? I own and shoot both and I know I far, far prefer the SMLE. The Model of 1917, on the other hand, became the dominant US rifle of the war in 30-06.
milsurpo
milsurpo
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
Mkrel
That appears to be a Bren gun sling on your No4. The Bren sling is identical but much longer.
By the way, note the No1Mk3 still has the slot for the cutoff, they just didn't bother to install one!
That appears to be a Bren gun sling on your No4. The Bren sling is identical but much longer.
By the way, note the No1Mk3 still has the slot for the cutoff, they just didn't bother to install one!
action cycles faster on an smle, and i think they didnt shrug off mud and abuse quite as well. the detachable mag is also a bonus, easier to clean and clear jams
Compared to the SMLE, the P14 is longer, heavier, and holds five fewer rounds. Faster bolt manipulation is also a plus. The sights are indeed the one advantage the P14 has over the SMLE.
The Pattern 13, with its high-velocity .276 cartridge, was the rifle that was planned to replace the SMLE. Fortunately, this switch was not made, as the .276 was prone to excessive recoil, muzzle blast, and barrel erosion. The improvement in external ballistics over the .303 would have had no utility at real-world combat distances.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
For the .276 it all depends. It was being designed for long range combat, which pre-WWI was what everyone one was expecting to be fighting. The main reason it was being designed was because of those pesky Boers and there 7mm Mauser rifles which they used to such great effect at long range (the same style of rifles that caused the States to abandon there Krags). It is all about having the right tool at the right time, and real-world combat distances is all relative. For places like Afghanistan and South Africa it isn't unreasonable to expect to fight at 800m+, vs. in the trenches where you are fighting literally sometimes as close as 50m.
The .276 hadn't been even fully developed as a round when the war broke out, and the desperate need for the British to have more rifles resulted in a order for the P14 in .303 British. The big reasons I feel the P14 wasn't made standard is it is heavier (significantly heavier than the SMLE), longer, less capacity, the massive surplus of No. 1 Mk. 3 rifles which had just proven there effectiveness in the trenches and it wasn't manufactured in Britain. The plusses which the P14 had were it is more accurate (though the SMLE is more than accurate enough for combat) and the sights depending on who you talk to are a improvement (I personally prefer the notch sight).
Snyder's and MH's were long gone out of service or they would have been. The Brits were so short of everything after Dunkerque, anything was used.
Anyway, as I recall, the mag cut off was briefly re-instated after W.W. I. Can't have the wastrels in the Ranks wasting ammo.
Anyway, as I recall, the mag cut off was briefly re-instated after W.W. I. Can't have the wastrels in the Ranks wasting ammo.
We have a BINGO and "Never say never!"
No. 4 Mk I (T), ex-Trials Rifle - Cut-off - Off or On? (by Terry Hawker)
http://www.milsurps.com/content.php...ials-Rifle-Cut-off-Off-or-On-(by-Terry-Hawker)
Tangential to current topic, but for more background ..
With thanks to Advisory Panel member Terry Hawker, check the Technical Articles for Milsurp Collectors and Re-loaders (click here)http://www.milsurps.com/content.php...esearch-for-milsurp-collectors-and-re-loaders.
No. 4 Mk I (T), ex-Trials Rifle - Cut-off - Off or On? (click here)http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=7039
This interesting article is accompanied by an extensive photo montage detailing the use and descriptions of the various of magazine cut-offs on Enfield rifles.
Regards,
Doug
With thanks to Advisory Panel member Terry Hawker, check the Technical Articles for Milsurp Collectors and Re-loaders (click here)http://www.milsurps.com/content.php...esearch-for-milsurp-collectors-and-re-loaders.
No. 4 Mk I (T), ex-Trials Rifle - Cut-off - Off or On? (click here)http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=7039
This interesting article is accompanied by an extensive photo montage detailing the use and descriptions of the various of magazine cut-offs on Enfield rifles.
Article Extract .....
Still reluctantly struggling with the concept of letting the "Other Ranks" have the option of firing a second shot at their own discretion, cut-offs were introduced by the War Department upon the demise of the Martini-Henry, then retained in one form or another for over half a century.
A MLM Mk II Skeleton Action illustrates how the cut-off was initially configured to employ the rifle as a single loader until the situation required the use of the magazine held in reserve.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Regards,
Doug
They were an older, standard rifle at that point in the war.
I was in the British Army when we began to replace the SLR (FN FAL) with SA80. The Army establishment was much smaller than it was in WWII (and in WWII it was growing as fast as it could) and it's a complicated undertaking. I trained the first batch of recruits on SA80, they went to nine different battalions and the Pioneers, most of which were still using SLRs and had to retrain their new recruits on the old rifle. In other divisions of the army the recruit training depots didn't get the new rifle until after some battalions they sent their recruits to had it, so those recruits trained on SLR and then had to get conversion training for SA80 as soon as they arrived in the battalions.
It's an even bigger problem in war, and a large part of why the P14 didn't replace the SMLE during WWI. At what point do you re-equip and re-train which units with the new rifle? When there are enough for a battalion, or all the battalions in a brigade or division? Corps? Army? When do you train their service support echelons, especially armourers, and start shipping spares into the supply depots? In WWII ANZAC and Indian Army units stuck with the No.1, would you ever convert the British units in the same field formations in N.Africa and the Far East to a different rifle during the war? It would mean shipping No.4 rifles made in U.K. and N.America out there instead of supplying them with rifles made in India and Australia, and that's an issue of shipping capacity rather than the rifles themselves.
Last edited:
