Huot and Charlton rifles....

H Wally

H Wally

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
193   0   0
Location
Canada/New Zealand
Two strange and intriguing rifles. Both were created through the need for support weapons, the huot by Canada and the Charlton by New Zealand. Both were scrapped when demand dropped. Both were F/A only.

I've been thinking.... if one could modify them to no longer take the original trigger groups, and make a solid s/a trigger group to replace them, it could be a fun and quirky gun to have.

The designs themselves are pretty straitforward. They were both designed and made by a single guy in a basic machine shop in the early part of the century.


EDIT - if anyone has the pics of the internals of the Huot, it would be appreciated if you could post them. They were on here but I can't find them. Someone had an opportunity to get hands on with them and got pics of the internals, dust cover raised. Further pics of either gun could be fun.


The charlton modified the enfield bolt and had a gas system on the right side of the gun.
Charlton20Automatic20Rifle_html_68c.jpg



Huot had the same bolt as before, since it was strait pull, but had gas system similar to the Lewis gun apparently.

19940001-791.jpg
 
I got to play with a Charlton for a little while the time I was at the Pattern Room while it still was at RSAF Enfield Lock. SUPER-nice toy!

The one they had used a Bren mag: lotsa rounds. The originals (and their was, of course, an original) were built from long Lee-Enfield Mark I and Mark I* rifles, using the original barrels, shortened, which made them the same diameter as a Number 4 barrel. The 'cooling fins' are not a finned barrel at all, even if they do look like one. They used aluminum washers separated by aluminum collars, swedged onto the existing barrel. When the assembly was complete, hey! Presto! Finned barrel!

Original guns were NOT straight full-automatic; they were selective-fire. The trigger mech was rather complex, but it could be made with a minimum of tools. I imagine one could make up a strict semi-auto trigger mech with little trouble. That would give you a legal Charlton, at least until the police made the extra parts so they could make it full-auto (as has happened several times in this wonderful free country of ours), which would give YOU 10 years of free board and room in a secure environment, all at Her Majesty's expense. The police, of course, then would have a nice Charlton to play with so they could demonstrate the dangers of having bolt-action rifles in this free country.

I have drawings of the trigger mech around here somewhere, will try to find them. There was a good article in one of the funny-papers about Charltons a number of years ago.... either GUNS AND AMMO or SHOOTING TIMES, as I recall..... 20 or so years back. Title of the article, if I remember rightly, was "BOLT-ACTION MACHINE GUN!".

But they ARE rather a fun toy.

Thanks for the GREAT photo of the Huot!
 
Last edited:
smellie said:
I got to play with a Charlton for a little while the time I was at the Pattern Room while it still was at RSAF Enfield Lock. SUPER-nice toy!

The one they had used a Bren mag: lotsa rounds. The originals (and their was, of course, an original) were built from long Lee-Enfield Mark I and Mark I* rifles, using the original barrels, shortened, which made them the same diameter as a Number 4 barrel. The 'cooling fins' are not a finned barrel at all, even if they do look like one. They used aluminum washers separated by aluminum collars, swedged onto the existing barrel. When the assembly was complete, hey! Presto! Finned barrel!

Original guns were NOT straight full-automatic; they were selective-fire. The trigger mech was rather complex, but it could be made with a minimum of tools. I imagine one could make up a strict semi-auto trigger mech with little trouble. That would give you a legal Charlton, at least until the police made the extra parts so they could make it full-auto (as has happened several times in this wonderful free country of ours), which would give YOU 10 years of free board and room in a secure environment, all at Her Majesty's expense. The police, of course, then would have a nice Charlton to play with so they could demonstrate the dangers of having bolt-action rifles in this free country.

I have drawings of the trigger mech around here somewhere, will try to find them. There was a good article in one of the funny-papers about Charltons a number of years ago.... either GUNS AND AMMO or SHOOTING TIMES, as I recall..... 20 or so years back. Title of the article, if I remember rightly, was "BOLT-ACTION MACHINE GUN!".

But they ARE rather a fun toy.

Thanks for the GREAT photo of the Huot!
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's pretty neat that it was select fire. If you could find the drawings of the trigger mech it would be appreciated, along with any other info if you come across it. With so many bubba'd enfields it would be an interesting experiment.

As for the RCMP verifiers, well, making a gun they couldn't bugger up would be part of the challenge:p

I'd think at minimum it would be redesigning the gun to use different threading for the bolts, and a slightly different bolt to make sure they couldn't swap parts back in. Move some mounting points too. The new trigger assembly would have to be pretty fool proof to avoid them just wedging something open though. Ah well, all part of the fun.



cantom said:
Pics of the Huot are really really rare...that's a good one you posted.

BTW, the rear sight looks like a Mk III B British model rear sight.


ROSSHUOT1Large.jpg


ROSSHUOT24Large.jpg
Click to expand...

I got it off of the Canadian war museum's website surprisingly enough, though it's only available in flash directly, so you have go through a different way to see the whole pic as a jpeg on its own.
 
Actually it wasn't bad. Wind must be blowing in the right direction tonight.

Interesting that the Huot worked as well as the Lewis gun in tests, yet the Mk. III rifle was withdrawn because of the problems attributed to it.
Charltons could use either adapted Bren mags, or the original Lee Enfield ones. Once fitted to a Charlton, the Bren mag. will never work in a Bren again.
 
Re: making up something the RCMP verifiers "couldn't bugger up....".

Can't be done, my friend, can't be done.

A very good friend, a millwright and machinist/toolmaker, once said to me, "The law is nothing but Government bullsh*t. Give me a lathe and a mill and two days and I can make the axle out of your Buick into a machine-gun!"

And he was serious.
 
On the originals, they just took the dust-covers off the original bolts, ground off the dust-cover lugs, then chopped off the bolt-knobs. That funny-looking slide affair performed the function of a hand in the 'slapping' motion of the bolt as taught to troopies while the LE rifles still were in Service use.

Your real problems would be in the trigger mech for the very good reason that the majority of 'semi-auto' actions are actually designed as full-autos and then enough extra parts added in to make them selective-fire or strict semi-auto. There are very few designs which are inherently semi-auto and actually require more parts to make them full-auto. One is the Reising SMG, another is the Johnson, but there really aren't many more.

You might take a careful look at a Reising bolt system some time; might give you some ideas about using the geometry of the parts in such a way as to limit the critter to strict semi-automatic conditions. I think if they have to start drilling holes in the thing and making new parts to get it to rat-a-tat, they MIGHT be a little more civilised about things.

But then, this IS Canada, so anything can happen. They took 3 of mine out of the MUSEUM where they were being stored, supposedly destroyed them.... but no evidence. No court order, either, and no hearing. Just did it. Oh, those 1851 and 1860 Colts are just so VERY dangerous!

And people wonder why I laugh when they say that this is a free country.
 
The Charlton is inherently semi auto, and has extra parts added to achieve auto fire. Omit the auto fire mechanism components, and the gun is seriously semi auto. Its not a case of removing parts - the parts would never be made or installed.
 
sunray said:
Geezuz! Reduce the size of the pictures. 2800 x 1061 will take a week for a dial up member to load.
Click to expand...

I kinda liked the big size... plus I hotlinked directly from the canadian war museum, so I don't think they would appreciate it:p

tiriaq said:
Actually it wasn't bad. Wind must be blowing in the right direction tonight.

Interesting that the Huot worked as well as the Lewis gun in tests, yet the Mk. III rifle was withdrawn because of the problems attributed to it.
Charltons could use either adapted Bren mags, or the original Lee Enfield ones. Once fitted to a Charlton, the Bren mag. will never work in a Bren again.
Click to expand...


I'd heard the same thing. It was a surprisingly functional design that died for other reasons.



smellie said:
On the originals, they just took the dust-covers off the original bolts, ground off the dust-cover lugs, then chopped off the bolt-knobs. That funny-looking slide affair performed the function of a hand in the 'slapping' motion of the bolt as taught to troopies while the LE rifles still were in Service use.

Your real problems would be in the trigger mech for the very good reason that the majority of 'semi-auto' actions are actually designed as full-autos and then enough extra parts added in to make them selective-fire or strict semi-auto. There are very few designs which are inherently semi-auto and actually require more parts to make them full-auto. One is the Reising SMG, another is the Johnson, but there really aren't many more.

You might take a careful look at a Reising bolt system some time; might give you some ideas about using the geometry of the parts in such a way as to limit the critter to strict semi-automatic conditions. I think if they have to start drilling holes in the thing and making new parts to get it to rat-a-tat, they MIGHT be a little more civilised about things.

But then, this IS Canada, so anything can happen. They took 3 of mine out of the MUSEUM where they were being stored, supposedly destroyed them.... but no evidence. No court order, either, and no hearing. Just did it. Oh, those 1851 and 1860 Colts are just so VERY dangerous!

And people wonder why I laugh when they say that this is a free country.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... I'd forgotten about the dust cover lugs. I was wondering why they used long lees originally, that makes a lot of sense.


I was thinking the same thing on the trigger mechs. It would need to be something that if jammed open or had pieces removed would lock up or stop firing rather than go f/a. Fairly certain it's doable.... just will take a lot of thinking.

Pity it's always easier to break something than it is to make it.
 
In New Zealand, SMLEs were in short supply and critically needed.
To make the Charltons, MLEs were called in from shooting clubs, etc.
 
tiriaq said:
The Charlton is inherently semi auto, and has extra parts added to achieve auto fire. Omit the auto fire mechanism components, and the gun is seriously semi auto. Its not a case of removing parts - the parts would never be made or installed.
Click to expand...
As tiriaq said the modifications required to make the Charlton semi-auto only are fairly straightforeward and would easily pass as being a true semi-auto only.
 
What I would be worried about would be the Authorities making their OWN parts, installing them and then prohibiting the things. They did it in Manitoba, years and years ago. The SA Uzis had been #####ed to the point that they couldn't be used FA, so the police just used the Civilian-owned uppers, put them onto their OWN FA lowers..... and the bolt went back and forth so, obviously, the entire guns HAD to be illegal. Confiscated the whole lot, threatened charges against the owners, all the rest. Friend of mine lost his this way and he had done NOTHING to attempt a reconversion to FA.

Perhaps I'm paranoid...... but is it paranoia when you have good reason? I think not. It's called 'experience'.

Still, it would be so nice to see a legal Charlton.

I really wonder how it would group......
 
smellie said:
What I would be worried about would be the Authorities making their OWN parts, installing them and then prohibiting the things. They did it in Manitoba, years and years ago. The SA Uzis had been #####ed to the point that they couldn't be used FA, so the police just used the Civilian-owned uppers, put them onto their OWN FA lowers..... and the bolt went back and forth so, obviously, the entire guns HAD to be illegal. Confiscated the whole lot, threatened charges against the owners, all the rest. Friend of mine lost his this way and he had done NOTHING to attempt a reconversion to FA.

Perhaps I'm paranoid...... but is it paranoia when you have good reason? I think not. It's called 'experience'.

Still, it would be so nice to see a legal Charlton.

I really wonder how it would group......
Click to expand...

Probably pretty badly with all the junk all over it moving about:p

I can see what you mean about them making it F/A, but like tiriaq says, it was originally made to be s/a with the f/a parts added. If you didn't follow the original design exactly, they would have to do a lot of work to even add f/a parts, which they would have to custom make. That would probably push it past the realm of "relatively easily conversted".

I'd really like to see one made. Seems some members are already far ahead of me in the process, but would certainly be a fun one to show up with at milsurp shoots!:p:p
 
cyclone said:
I wonder if there enough Ross sporters out there to experiment with a semi-auto Huot mod...:evil:
Click to expand...

I've got some layed aside. Best thing is, you can use the utterly buggered ones... burnt out barrels, messed up stocks etc, because you know the first one is going to look ugly as heck. Since the original Huot didn't have original magazine, trigger mech, sights, mag well, trigger guard etc, you can basically strip a sporter for parts and still make a huot.

Need to get myself a lathe in the meantime though, so bubba's guns will have to wait.

And I don't have a clue how the huot was made, owing to utter lack of information.
 
Gawd knows there are lotsa completely wrecked military Rosses out there, heavy barrels and all. I have seen them cut back as short as 22 inches, although 24 or 25 seems to have been more common. Commercials tended to use 26- and 28-inch tubes that were a LOT lighter.... at least, the few that I have seen.

What's THAT ugly thing?
It's a Huot!
A what?
You heard me; it's a Huot.
That's what I said, you idiot: what is it?
A Huot.
A HUOT? Oh, sh*t, now you've got me doing it!
Yes, the what is a Huot..... or perhaps the Huot is the what.... something like that.

Or you could combine the two, come up with Huot a Charlton or something.

But then, if you ran it on 150-grain slugs, maybe they would get out of the bore before all that crap started slamming back and forth. We really don't know, do we?

Be fun, that's for sure.
 
If a Charlton were made using only the original semi auto portion of the trigger mechanism, conversion to full auto would require a fair bit more work. There are no parts which could be purchased, everything would have to be made from scratch, and the receiver would have to be altered as well. This is a locked breech high power rifle, not an unlocked blowback pistol caliber firearm.
I really doubt that conversion to auto is an issue.
There are lists of which parts from the Mk. III Ross were used as manufactured; altered; and which parts had to be newly made. There are also some parts in the Huot conversion that could be deleted, like that latch you can see near the bolt handle.
Note that the receiver used in a Huot has been extended further to the rear.
The Huot uses a gun driven drum magazine. Original magazines are exempt from the magazine capacity restrictions, for what that's worth. A repro would be limited to five rounds. Making a magazine alone would be a challenge - unless the original magazine were retained within a shell for appearances sake.
The Huot seems to be a lot more complicated that a Charlton, from the stanpoint of making a reproduction.
 
tiriaq said:
If a Charlton were made using only the original semi auto portion of the trigger mechanism, conversion to full auto would require a fair bit more work. There are no parts which could be purchased, everything would have to be made from scratch, and the receiver would have to be altered as well. This is a locked breech high power rifle, not an unlocked blowback pistol caliber firearm.
I really doubt that conversion to auto is an issue.
There are lists of which parts from the Mk. III Ross were used as manufactured; altered; and which parts had to be newly made. There are also some parts in the Huot conversion that could be deleted, like that latch you can see near the bolt handle.
Note that the receiver used in a Huot has been extended further to the rear.
The Huot uses a gun driven drum magazine. Original magazines are exempt from the magazine capacity restrictions, for what that's worth. A repro would be limited to five rounds. Making a magazine alone would be a challenge - unless the original magazine were retained within a shell for appearances sake.
The Huot seems to be a lot more complicated that a Charlton, from the stanpoint of making a reproduction.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about this one is that it appears to have been manufactured in 1921
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom