Why no Canadian SMLEs ?
- Thread starter sigshr
- Start date
Because the Brits didn't have the manufacturing capability to outkit their colonies with rifles at the start of the war. They only had the surplus capability around mid 1917
Another interesting tidbit, Canada did have a contract for the rifle in 1913ish, but when war broke out all contracts were halted to outkit the British army
Another interesting tidbit, Canada did have a contract for the rifle in 1913ish, but when war broke out all contracts were halted to outkit the British army
Canada's adoption of the Ross preceded the outbreak of the Great war by several years. The 1903 was the first pattern purchased, followed by many Mk.IIs, adopted in 1905.
Australia chose to set up a factory to manufacture the SMLE, with tooling from Pratt & Whitney. Canada elected not to.
Australia chose to set up a factory to manufacture the SMLE, with tooling from Pratt & Whitney. Canada elected not to.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
I thought it wasn't a matter of Canada electing not to as the British refusing to allow Canada to set up the facilities to manufacture Lee Enfields.
Lee Enfield
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Alberta
The war office refused to sell us Enfield rifles during the Boer War, and when we elected to build a factory to build our own Enfields, refused to allow it.
The Ross was adopted somewhat out of spite against the British establishment.
It is said that the Australians also were refused a "license" to build enfield, but appealed on the grounds of being too far away for supply during a war.
Between ww1 and ww2 Canada had some 128,000 SMLE rifles and 150,000 Ross MkIII on issue and in stores.
Last edited:
Lee Enfield
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Alberta
They wanted us to purchase rifles from them. London Small Arms, Birmingham Small Arms and Enfield all competed for commercial (read empire dominions) supply contracts.
The falicy of this was shown when Canada's orders were not filled in order to supply the British army...both going to the same war in South Africa...
Canada didn't have the military establishment to contribute significant numbers of troops and the War Office didn't expect to need more than they had. The Boer War surprised them by lasting long enough and requiring an embarrassing number and they had to look to the other Dominions to contribute troops that the mother country had difficulty arming.
We were a Dominion at the time, we didn't have a choice. It wasn't until the end of WW1 that we started to assert our independence by being signatories to the armistice as a separate country, not just a Dominion.
We waited 10 days to declare war against Germany in WWII after Britain did supposedly to debate it. Probably more of a message that we did not want to be treated as a colony anymore.
A part of the licencing deal the Australians had to also agree to supply England with SMLE's as was required and in actual fact did send many of the first production runs to England from the beginning as witness this statement from the Lithgow Small Arms Museum -
"The Lithgow Small Arms Factory was opened during June 1912 and geared up to produce this rifle at the rate of 15,000 per year. Manufacture was well under way by 1914 when the British Government placed urgent requirements on production in readiness for any shortages upon the outbreak of WWI. All but 10,000 surplus rifles were sent to Britain, this causing a shortage here in Australia until production was increased. Some 30,500 MkIII rifles were produced during the 1915-16 financial year, this the highest rate of production during the Great War."
The British were very annoyed with Australia when they choose to buy at that time, state of the art American firearms production machinery instead of buying the old and expensive British equipment that the British wanted them too to set up their new Government owned Small Arms factory.
"The Lithgow Small Arms Factory was opened during June 1912 and geared up to produce this rifle at the rate of 15,000 per year. Manufacture was well under way by 1914 when the British Government placed urgent requirements on production in readiness for any shortages upon the outbreak of WWI. All but 10,000 surplus rifles were sent to Britain, this causing a shortage here in Australia until production was increased. Some 30,500 MkIII rifles were produced during the 1915-16 financial year, this the highest rate of production during the Great War."
The British were very annoyed with Australia when they choose to buy at that time, state of the art American firearms production machinery instead of buying the old and expensive British equipment that the British wanted them too to set up their new Government owned Small Arms factory.
Yes, only a few years after convincing Canada to re-arm with the Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle, the UK was unable to supply additional rifles to Canada for the Boer War. Strictly speaking, that did not prevent Canada from having the only contingent whose infantry (traditional and mounted) were armed entirely with the state-of-the-art Lee-Enfield - we just had to withdraw rifles from Militia units at home to do so.
However, I have never seen any evidence that Britain "refused to allow" production of the new SMLE rifle in Canada, thereafter.... I understand the real truth is that Britain refused to PAY for a factory to build such rifles in Canada, like our #####rdly government wanted. (It made "good press" to claim we weren't "allowed" to build the Lee-Enfield in Canada .... in fact, a major factor in the adoption of the Ross rifle was that Sir Charles Ross completely funded his own factory.) Australia, on the other hand, funded the construction of its own factory at Lithgow.
I recall that as well, can't remember just how many they built, but the number is small.
Was there not some politicking involved with the creation of the Lithgow factories due to the apparent success of the Ross pre WWI? I seem to recall it was stomping all over the Brits at shooting competitions. They didn't appreciate such independence of a colony at the time, and didn't want the Aussies to exercise their independence quite so much. Though it could've all boiled down to profits as mentioned earlier too.....
The Australians had a long history of acquiring and using whatever arms they thought best for their needs and used just as many American firearms as British ones right up until WW2. Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers were just as common as Webley's and other British made firearms in use among the police and Militias and with the public.
Australia never intended on acquiring the Ross or used that as a excuse to build their arms factory. The British wanted all their colonies to be self sufficient and equipped with the same arms and even set up arms factories in what is now India and Pakistan. Australia became independent of England in 1900 with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900 which became law on the 9th of July 1900, way ahead their building the Lithgow factory or of Canada which waited until 1982 to do the same.
Australia was long a independent commonwealth country when Lithgow was built and that is why they paid for it themselves.
The Australians choose the Pratt & Witney machinery because it was proven to be the best mass produced arms making machinery available at the time and the price was less than the British Machinery which was slower and required far more workers and hand fitting to produce the same amount of completed firearms.
The finished Lithgow SMLE's were regarded as first rate and as good if not better than any out of England. Their steel quality was also first rate as Australia then as now has some of the purest ore in the world. Most of the high quality steel coming out of Japan and China now is made from Australian ore.
The Lee rifle is also a American design by a Scot named James Paris Lee who settled in America and became as citizen there. His rifles were adopted by both China and the USA in limited numbers before the British. They were made by both Winchester and Remington before England adopted it and had Enfield modify it to meet their needs with longer lasting Enfield rifling, hence the name Lee Enfield.
Here are some early American made Lee rifles -
Australia never intended on acquiring the Ross or used that as a excuse to build their arms factory. The British wanted all their colonies to be self sufficient and equipped with the same arms and even set up arms factories in what is now India and Pakistan. Australia became independent of England in 1900 with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900 which became law on the 9th of July 1900, way ahead their building the Lithgow factory or of Canada which waited until 1982 to do the same.
Australia was long a independent commonwealth country when Lithgow was built and that is why they paid for it themselves.
The Australians choose the Pratt & Witney machinery because it was proven to be the best mass produced arms making machinery available at the time and the price was less than the British Machinery which was slower and required far more workers and hand fitting to produce the same amount of completed firearms.
The finished Lithgow SMLE's were regarded as first rate and as good if not better than any out of England. Their steel quality was also first rate as Australia then as now has some of the purest ore in the world. Most of the high quality steel coming out of Japan and China now is made from Australian ore.
The Lee rifle is also a American design by a Scot named James Paris Lee who settled in America and became as citizen there. His rifles were adopted by both China and the USA in limited numbers before the British. They were made by both Winchester and Remington before England adopted it and had Enfield modify it to meet their needs with longer lasting Enfield rifling, hence the name Lee Enfield.
Here are some early American made Lee rifles -
