I think that the time this was made may be a very important factor. It is pre EAL rifles with the many mods done for a mk4, I wonder if they were trying no1mk3 and mk4 enfield variants for the ranger rifle. Even though it is not a pretty rifle who knows what the history or the ideas behind it were.
Lee Enfield Aluminum stock update New photos for smellie post #8
- Thread starter neal
- Start date
- Location
- Beaverlodge, Alberta
Weren't the Ranger rifles intended to be used in the arctic a lot? Ouch no thanks. I want wood in my palms over aluminum any day at -40!
Didn't the EAL rifle in its beginnings supposed to be a survival rifle that was lighter for planes etc? This still had wood in the rifle if you look at the bottom half of the stock. Interesting that the governments were trying different material then to be self sufficient if normal material for the time became scarce.
Okay, Janice will be here tomorrow; her computer knows the post-a-picture spell, so we will get some photos up..... although I can't imagine why. The two rifles are as close as peas in a pod or pennies in a roll.
I am rather happy, though: my serial number is lower although, at 69111R, I don't imagine serials mean a heck of lot in this case.
An interesting point is that Enfield stopped all work on the SMLE in 1943, but both the rifles we are looking at have 1945 barrel dates. They also both exhibit a MIX of Birmingham proofs and Enfield Inspectors' marks.
BSA had the ONLY plant in the UK which was set up for turning out parts and barrels for the Number 1 Rifle. That should explain the Birmingham markings, at least.
Both rifles have that ugly Suncorite finish on the metal. Surely few things more ugly have been devised..... but it works.
We have to consider the PERIOD in which these appear to have been done. The War had ended, but Stalin's Russia was getting nastier every day. The "Iron Curtain" which Churchill named was coming down and it was coming down fast and hard. Lend-Lease was history and Russia was the big winner, keeping (and refusing to pay for) equipment which would be worth tens of billions if made today, including several hundred freighters. How much is a 10,000-ton freighter worth? A lot. During the War, Russia had taken every item of aid they could scrounge and begged for more, even if we could not afford it. In Canada, a factory was set up which produced 1400 Valentine tanks; they all went to Russia. The Canadian Army at that time was training on Fords and Renaults: First World War designs.
And then Ivan showed up for his victory parade through Berlin with a trainload of Josef Stalin III tanks. Low and fast, packing a 4.8-inch HV gun and tracks wide enough to cross a swimming-pool, we had nothing to compare with it. Russia had set up an entire factory and put these monsters into series production WITHOUT using a single one in combat. It was to be a SURPRISE to the West.... and it certainly was that.
Previously, Russia had asked for American/British help to bomb German territory which Russia was invading. This could only be done by overflying, dumping the load, landing behind Russian lines and refuelling for the trip back. Russia KEPT the airplanes, treated the crews only slightly better than they treated German POWs.
The world political situation was heading straight to Hell and doing it in record time. Patton, clear-thinking as usual, simply wanted to keep his tanks headed East until he got to the Urals. Who knows? He MIGHT have been able to do it.
And Britain still had 4 million or so SMLEs on the books, so they started FTRing those, likely at BSA, while Fazakerley and Maltby worked on FTRs on battle-weary Number 4s.
The British were ENTIRELY conscious as to how close a call they had had in 1940/41 and so, while the Labour Government might be willing to hand Uncle Joe 50 brand-new jet engines, the Army had other ideas.
A comprehensive program was begun to study ALTERNATE MATERIALS and techniques, and it was needed. The great Ash forests were gone: artillery wheels for two wars; Ash takes a long time to grow to useful size. Walnut was scarce: many British rifles were built with American Walnut, which also grows slowly, chops down fast. BEECH and BIRCH were tried, Beech not looking too great, Birch being too heavy. Laminates were tried, mostly simple glue-up types until the German Tego technique was better understood. And this continues to this day. When I examined s/n 04 of the X-70, I was amazed at the WEIGHT of the thing. Light alloys could reduce the weight of that rifle by at least 2 pounds..... but it had been designed around simple STEEL. There is NOTHING in the current British L-85 which is not of LOCAL ORIGIN. They are not going to be caught with their pants down again, the way they were in 1940.
So we come to these two strange rifles. A handful of SMLEs were wanted for exprimental use at Enfield. A couple of crates of refurbs were shipped and used. These included the two rifles we are studying here. They were given recycled Ross butts in order to see how much trouble it would be to modify a butt from one rifle to suit another. The aluminum forestocks likely would have been an effort to produce something which might be of use in a tropical climate in which wood would rot quickly.That the aluminum forestocks have no provision for the Rear Sight Guard suggests that they were trying also to produce a handy, lightweight rifle from some of their about-to-become surplus SMLEs.
We do not know enough. These are guesses only. I would be shocked if they were bang-on, but I think I would be equally shocked if there were not SOMETHING in them.
More research is necessary, that's certain.
I am rather happy, though: my serial number is lower although, at 69111R, I don't imagine serials mean a heck of lot in this case.
An interesting point is that Enfield stopped all work on the SMLE in 1943, but both the rifles we are looking at have 1945 barrel dates. They also both exhibit a MIX of Birmingham proofs and Enfield Inspectors' marks.
BSA had the ONLY plant in the UK which was set up for turning out parts and barrels for the Number 1 Rifle. That should explain the Birmingham markings, at least.
Both rifles have that ugly Suncorite finish on the metal. Surely few things more ugly have been devised..... but it works.
We have to consider the PERIOD in which these appear to have been done. The War had ended, but Stalin's Russia was getting nastier every day. The "Iron Curtain" which Churchill named was coming down and it was coming down fast and hard. Lend-Lease was history and Russia was the big winner, keeping (and refusing to pay for) equipment which would be worth tens of billions if made today, including several hundred freighters. How much is a 10,000-ton freighter worth? A lot. During the War, Russia had taken every item of aid they could scrounge and begged for more, even if we could not afford it. In Canada, a factory was set up which produced 1400 Valentine tanks; they all went to Russia. The Canadian Army at that time was training on Fords and Renaults: First World War designs.
And then Ivan showed up for his victory parade through Berlin with a trainload of Josef Stalin III tanks. Low and fast, packing a 4.8-inch HV gun and tracks wide enough to cross a swimming-pool, we had nothing to compare with it. Russia had set up an entire factory and put these monsters into series production WITHOUT using a single one in combat. It was to be a SURPRISE to the West.... and it certainly was that.
Previously, Russia had asked for American/British help to bomb German territory which Russia was invading. This could only be done by overflying, dumping the load, landing behind Russian lines and refuelling for the trip back. Russia KEPT the airplanes, treated the crews only slightly better than they treated German POWs.
The world political situation was heading straight to Hell and doing it in record time. Patton, clear-thinking as usual, simply wanted to keep his tanks headed East until he got to the Urals. Who knows? He MIGHT have been able to do it.
And Britain still had 4 million or so SMLEs on the books, so they started FTRing those, likely at BSA, while Fazakerley and Maltby worked on FTRs on battle-weary Number 4s.
The British were ENTIRELY conscious as to how close a call they had had in 1940/41 and so, while the Labour Government might be willing to hand Uncle Joe 50 brand-new jet engines, the Army had other ideas.
A comprehensive program was begun to study ALTERNATE MATERIALS and techniques, and it was needed. The great Ash forests were gone: artillery wheels for two wars; Ash takes a long time to grow to useful size. Walnut was scarce: many British rifles were built with American Walnut, which also grows slowly, chops down fast. BEECH and BIRCH were tried, Beech not looking too great, Birch being too heavy. Laminates were tried, mostly simple glue-up types until the German Tego technique was better understood. And this continues to this day. When I examined s/n 04 of the X-70, I was amazed at the WEIGHT of the thing. Light alloys could reduce the weight of that rifle by at least 2 pounds..... but it had been designed around simple STEEL. There is NOTHING in the current British L-85 which is not of LOCAL ORIGIN. They are not going to be caught with their pants down again, the way they were in 1940.
So we come to these two strange rifles. A handful of SMLEs were wanted for exprimental use at Enfield. A couple of crates of refurbs were shipped and used. These included the two rifles we are studying here. They were given recycled Ross butts in order to see how much trouble it would be to modify a butt from one rifle to suit another. The aluminum forestocks likely would have been an effort to produce something which might be of use in a tropical climate in which wood would rot quickly.That the aluminum forestocks have no provision for the Rear Sight Guard suggests that they were trying also to produce a handy, lightweight rifle from some of their about-to-become surplus SMLEs.
We do not know enough. These are guesses only. I would be shocked if they were bang-on, but I think I would be equally shocked if there were not SOMETHING in them.
More research is necessary, that's certain.
Last edited:
Great post Smellie, I may post this rifle on milsurps and milsurps collectors to see if anyone has any other ideas about this.
Neal
Correct me if I am wrong, and a bit off topic, but didn't H&K re-design the L-85 to make it serviceable after stocks started melting when wet with bug spray and the operating mechanism ceased to work when the rifle got hot?
I *THINK* some of the L85A2 rifle is made in Germany these days.
- Location
- West Quebec
You guys(Smellie) etc have a fun thing going treasure it..
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
I am sure everyone knows the story about the EAL (have two different ones) They sold off all the Enfields and then had to buy them back from the surplus dealers since the EAL didn't hold up worth a damm with the use by the rangers.
The EAL is a nice hunting rifle BUT NOT as rugged as a military rifle
The EAL is a nice hunting rifle BUT NOT as rugged as a military rifle
If this was something put together for experimental reasons, the Ross butts may have been used to introduce an element of unfamiliarity to the user experience. This was done at times with trials and experimental projects as it was felt that users might be influenced in their responses by familiar weapons. For example scope mounting trials were done on US Springfields etc. The "sporter" configuration might be another attempt to vary the user experience and isolate their reports to the particular issue being studied. I can see no other reason for fitting Ross butts as No4 butts were easily fitted and available in their millions in 1945, not to mention there being plenty of No1 butts and those from earlier Lee Enfields on hand as well.
I would assume that if this was an official experiment it involved an attempt to get around the notorious tendency of the pre-No4 Mk2 rifles to "adjust" their own trigger pull with changes in humidity and exposure to water generally. That and the time and trouble involved in stocking them up correctly and maintaining them.
I can't believe those chunks of plastic screwed to the side are anything but some later user's attempt to keep their fingers warm.
If these were an official experiment, one would have expected the wooden grip of the forend to be much larger so that users could keep their hands off the metal.
It'll be interesting to see what further info turns up.
I would assume that if this was an official experiment it involved an attempt to get around the notorious tendency of the pre-No4 Mk2 rifles to "adjust" their own trigger pull with changes in humidity and exposure to water generally. That and the time and trouble involved in stocking them up correctly and maintaining them.
I can't believe those chunks of plastic screwed to the side are anything but some later user's attempt to keep their fingers warm.
If these were an official experiment, one would have expected the wooden grip of the forend to be much larger so that users could keep their hands off the metal.
It'll be interesting to see what further info turns up.
I agree, great post. BTW Smellie, have you asked Ian Skennerton? It seems likely that he may have more info on these? If not, these may be of interest to him.
