I was under the impression that the deletion of the volley sights and magazine cutoff was more of a manufacturing decision than one of practicalities. Freeing up time and machinery for more urgent tasks instead of a couple doohickeys that weren't used all that often in the close combat of the trenches. Some of them may even have been retrofitted after the war, around the time they were updated for the new ammunition, I'll have to read up on that again...
British use of the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.III (SMLE) with mag cutoff during WW2
- Thread starter mkrnel
- Start date
Winchester 94's, various shotguns and basically anything that would go bang as well. They were expecting a German invasion, a lot of stuff was put in stores in preparation for that as well. They just located another Home Guard cache recently, a significant amount of rifles and ammunition. I heard that a very limited number of people were told where they were located to avoid German discovery. The plan was for a resistance in overtaken areas, a la France. Fortunately it never came to bear, but they had other things on their minds and weren't all that worried about who had a magazine cutoff on their rifle.
You can't compare the past 15 years in todays Canadian Military to the first 40 years of the past century in the British Military.
I'll ask you this why did Canadian troops deploy with FTHB C8s to Afghanistan when there were C8A2s in stock? Why did troops deploy with right handed only C7s when we have ambi C7s? Why did/do troops still deploy with black C9s when we have pretty green C9s avail. You know why? Because the FTHB and right handed C7s, and black C9s work and were/are still available. Just because they are a front line unit does not mean they will always get the newest rifle off the line.
This thread hasn't gone off a tangent, you're just annoyed we disagree with you
The Mk111 was the standard rifle. If it was an old one with a volley sight and cut off, it was still a fully functional #1 rifle. The fact that it had a cut off in no way reduced performance for the soldier that carried it. I see no reason why it should not be issued to a front line unit.
mkrnel: Interesting thread- I find these sorts of discussions entertaining and interesting. My take on your original theme is this: there were plenty of Mk III versions (with cutoff but no volley sights) manufactured during the twenties and thirties. These would have been first class arms in every way when WW2 rolled around. The minor inconvenience of the cutoff in rapid fire I don't think would have been a big deal during desperate times. If one of these was sent in for repairs it might have the cutoff removed and a new forend installed to cover the cutoff slot, effectively "upgrading it to Mk III*. The rifles with volley sights are more difficult to understand as these would have truly been old guns in '39. Perhaps they reflect weapons sourced from the colonies where, from Martini days on, individual rifles often escaped upgrading programs undertaken in the UK (I don't include India here as they were noted for vast recycling programs). I'll bet that there are a great number of WW1 or earlier vintage Mk III rifles present on front -lines in WW2 photos that simply cannot be identified as such as they have been upgraded.
milsurpo
milsurpo
The Wizard
CGN Regular
- Location
- Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
I hope the 1949 date was a typo. I will have to look at my references but I believe the that they stop producing the M1903A3 in 1943.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the Brits were still making No 1 rifles in WWII. (Dispersal rifles?) So were the Aussies.
So the support structure still had to exist to service them.
We've even seen SMLE's rebarrelled by Long Branch Arsenals.
If a rifle had a couple of superfluous features like volley sights, that wouldn't hurt anything much.
I prefer the sights on a No 4 rifle, but would not feel poorly armed at all with an SMLE.
So the support structure still had to exist to service them.
We've even seen SMLE's rebarrelled by Long Branch Arsenals.
If a rifle had a couple of superfluous features like volley sights, that wouldn't hurt anything much.
I prefer the sights on a No 4 rifle, but would not feel poorly armed at all with an SMLE.
First of all, the pictures of the British soldiers were taken early in the war. Even though it was officially adopted on paper in 1939, the No.4 rifle didn't really start to replace the SMLE until roughly mid-way through the war; quantity production only started in mid-1941. Given the quantities required, it would not be possible to switch over to the new rifle overnight. Different theatres also had different priorities for issue of new equipment.
Second, while the magazine cutoffs and volley sights were superfluous parts that were omitted from production, they didn't really detract from the utility of the rifle, either. There was simply no good reason for the old version already in the system not to continue to be used as-is alongside the ones without the extra parts.
Third, the P14 had a good reputation for accuracy and its shortcomings relative to Lee Enfield rifles were not as important when used in the sniper role. It thus made perfectly good sense to use these already-produced rifles in the role, for which they were best suited.
Second, while the magazine cutoffs and volley sights were superfluous parts that were omitted from production, they didn't really detract from the utility of the rifle, either. There was simply no good reason for the old version already in the system not to continue to be used as-is alongside the ones without the extra parts.
Third, the P14 had a good reputation for accuracy and its shortcomings relative to Lee Enfield rifles were not as important when used in the sniper role. It thus made perfectly good sense to use these already-produced rifles in the role, for which they were best suited.
Not annoyed at all, actually I'm very happy this post is thought provoking and getting good replies, I don't consider myself to have all the answers on why but just find the use of these older non standard rifles at this point into the war on the front lines interesting.
I'm reading a book right now "Korea: Canadas Forgotten War". On the back cover there is a photo of B Coy, 2 Bn, PPCLI Feb 1951 North Korea. Most of the Troops have No4s. The one in the front has a No1. Canada still had some in use in Korea.
mkrnel, I think you are missing the numbers, not of weapons but of men. We are not taking a few hundred or thousand or 10's of thousands we are talking 100's of thousands and millions of men. I don't have the numbers by year and most certainly not every soldier carried a rifle but the bulk did. So whatever was at hand has to do.
No one has mobilized untrained troops in those numbers since WW II so we just don't have a comparable frame of reference for the issues around arming and outfitting them.
No one has mobilized untrained troops in those numbers since WW II so we just don't have a comparable frame of reference for the issues around arming and outfitting them.
I read somewhere that the US was still assembling some as sniper and national match rifles until the late 1940's and when I checked on Wikipedia I saw that they quoted 1907-1949 as the production dates.
As you probably know Remington and Smith-Corona Typewriter Co. were given contracts to start up production again after 1941.
they were used extensively until the the Brits came out with the Sten. It was the best Allied SMG if you use stick mags. The M3 grease gun is cool too.
Google the Sten Mk5, it uses parts off the No4 Mk1 enfield rifles. Pretty cool looking firearm and nice to shoulder.(never shot just fondled)
I used these quotes from Wikipedia for manpower during 1941 -
In September 1939, the army had a total of 892,697 officers and men in both the full-time regular army and part-time Territorial Army. The regular army could muster 224,000 men, who were supported by a reserve of 173,700 men. Of the regular army reservists, only 3,700 men were fully trained and the remainder had been in civilian life for up to 13 years.[SUP][10][/SUP] In April 1939, an additional 34,500 men had been conscripted into the regular army and had only completed their basic training on the eve of war.[SUP][11][/SUP] The regular army was built around 30 cavalry or armoured regiments and 140 infantry battalions.[SUP][12][/SUP] The Territorial Army numbered 438,100, with a reserve of around 20,750 men.[SUP][11][/SUP] This force comprised 29 yeomanry regiments (eight of which were still to be fully mechanized), 12 tank and 232 infantry battalions.[SUP][12]
[/SUP]
Conscription was introduced in early 1939[SUP][13][/SUP] to meet the threat of Nazi Germany, with the Military Training Act 1939. The Act required all men aged 20 and 21 to take six months' military training. On the outbreak of war on 3 September 1939, the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939 was rushed through Parliament. This extended the liability to military service to all fit men between 20–23. The age group was increased as the war continued,[SUP][14][/SUP] ultimately applying to all fit men between the ages of 18–41.
By the end of 1939, the Army's strength had risen to 1.1 million men, by June 1940 it stood at 1.65 million men,[SUP][15][/SUP] and had further increased to 2.2 million men by the following June. The size of the Army peaked in June 1945, at 2.9 million men.[SUP][11][/SUP] By the end of the Second World War and the final demobilisations in 1946, over 3.5 million men had served in the British Army.[SUP][16][/SUP]
One thing to remember about Lee Enfield rifles is the "first rule" - the first rule of Lee Enfields is that there are no hard and fast rules. I used to own a No5 that had a clear production date marked on it - which was six months after production was ordered stopped.
03A3 and 03A4 Sniper rifle production continued until early 1944. Springfield Armory experimented with 03A3 match rifles to some extent in the late 1940s, but the M1903 Springfield was pretty much replaced by the Garand as a match rifle after WW2. I'd love to shoot a properly bedded 1930s vintage M1903 National Match rifle with a good barrel. I've found that stock M1903s are very accurate in as issue configuration provided that barrels are sound, sights tight and bedding is per spec.
Uhhh, there are varying degrees of obsolescence. A SMLE Mk.III is perfectly okay for WW2 combat, considering how similar the manual of arms is between it and the not-obsolete, upgraded versions. A theme here is that all of these pictures (of the Mk.III) are taken in the early days of the war. In 1941, it was reasonable to assume that Hitler wasn't exactly going to lose the war. An obscene amount of equipment was left behind at Dunkirk in 1940, to the point where the British were passing out O/U shotguns generous Americans had sent them to their home-guard.
It's not unreasonable for the on-paper definitions of what is and is not obsolete to become a little blurry when you're fighting for the survival of your nation. Mk.III's used the same .303 ammunition as the more modern version of the weapon, and some training time could be used to hammer out any kinks soldiers may have with the older sights or what that weird magazine cutoff was supposed to be used for. My basic point here is that there's no way the British in 1940/1941 would have turned down perfectly okay rifles because they were a little outdated. It wasn't gonna' happen. Of course they wouldn't have issued Sneyders, as the ammunition and training costs would have been too high. But, a slightly older version of the current service rifle? No problem.
Here's an analogy: I remember about ten years ago, CNN did some story about how National Guardsmen sent to Iraq were being issued M16A1 rifles from the Vietnam War. Consider the training that would have been required to make a Guardsman who was used to the A2, proficient on the A1: It's barely anything. An afternoon on the range explaining the sights and he's good to go. It wouldn't be much different with the soldiers in these pictures. "Hey, this rifle's a little different but it operates about the same as what you're used to, so let's sort you out." No big deal if it helps you prevent the world from ending, especially if you're building on skills that would already be there from his basic and infantry training.
This is hardly the first instance of this. I've heard some American SF-doorkicker types still use M79 grenade launchers, and the whole 'we need to bring our previously-thought-to-be-obsolete M14's out of storage because 5.56 isn't cutting it for 600+ meter engagements across valleys in the Hindu Kush' thing about fifteen years ago.
Sometimes circumstances change.
Last edited:
It probably just came down to logistics. The photos show troops in North Africa and the Middle East. Secondary theatres of war. The British would have pre-existing stockpiles of SMLEs and spares in place in Egypt and Palestine. So the question becomes is it more important to fit a company's worth of No4s on that supply ship, or an extra tank?
