Lee-Enfield magazine removal, why not?

flying pig

flying pig

CGN frequent flyer
Uber Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
113   0   0
Location
Beaverlodge, Alberta
I've been told several times that you should not make it common practice to remove a magazine from a Lee-Enfield rifle. Trying to find out what the reasoning behind this is. I know they are meant to be charger loaded. It would make sense to me that this was a logical reason, and not so much because it would affect zero or anything like that. I could also see a soldier loosing a magazine that had to have the mag lips etc custom fitted to his rifle lose it in the field on accident if it was allowed to be removed, but other than that is there any reason we should not do it in the civi world? Was it to keep wear and tear on the sear spring down? I don't think I know a hunter in this neck of the woods who doesnt remove his magazine on the trusty old bubba'd .303 when on the move in a vehicle etc. I've been pondering this for a while.
 
flying pig said:
I could also see a soldier loosing a magazine
Click to expand...

From what I've been told and read about, that was the reason. They didn't want to make it habit to remove the magazine because they were concerned soldiers would lose them in the field, removal was only meant for cleaning, repair, or replacement. Every soldier was issued only one magazine with their rifle.

That was the reason during WWI anyways, I'm not sure if soldiers were issued more than one magazine during WWII.
 
Don Kael said:
From what I've been told and read about, that was the reason. They didn't want to make it habit to remove the magazine because they were concerned soldiers would lose them in the field, removal was only meant for cleaning, repair, or replacement. Every soldier was issued only one magazine with their rifle.

That was the reason during WWI anyways, I'm not sure if soldiers were issued more than one magazine during WWII.
Click to expand...

There is always the opportunity to pick up spare kit in war, but they were only ever issued with one magazine. Clipped ammunition loaded easily enough through the charger and their clothing and equipment wasn't designed to carry extra magazines, so I don't think it was common to bother with extras. I can't recall ever hearing of it.
 
First time Ive ever heard of this, Ive always removed and inserted the mag whenever required and have never had a problem.
 
I removed the magazine from my No. 5, stowed my rifle in the truck and put the magazine on the tailgate of my truck as I ate my lunch. Finished my lunch, closed the tailgate, drove to a new location to walk and lo and behold no magazine.

I drove back to my lunch site and there on the shoulder of the road sat my magazine.

Keep the magazine in the rifle!
 
I thought that I'd read something about it resetting something in the trigger.....I'm sure I read it in one of smellies posts, maybe he can elaborate.

Edit: apparently I'm incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Over the past 8 years, I have answered a LOT of threads with complaints about Failure to Feed in the Lee-Enfield rifle.

Nearly all of them could be traced to magazines being swapped, dropped and plopped instead of being left IN the rifles.

Properly fitted and adjusted, they will feed flawlessly even with crappy modern ammunition which lacks the gentle RIM BEVEL you find on early military ammo. That Bevel was there to enable misloaded rounds to slip OVER the lower rounds..... and feed flawlessly.

IN the rifle, the feed lips cannot get bent. They are only thin sheet-metal and they bend easily, especially when DROPPED. Or knocked off the table. Or diddled with by some genius who knew more than James Paris Lee. Magazines were a critical and expensive component. They were (until the deep-drawn Number 4 Rifle Magazine came out) hand-made and individually-fitted to a particular Rifle. They were not serialled because it was recognised that they were somewhat fragile. Unit Armourers maintained a small supply of Magazines but these were not SPARES: they were REPLACEMENTS and were to be fitted BY THE ARMOURER.

I have seen guys show up at matches with pockets bulging with magazines in order that they might do a 'fast reload', dropping magazines on the ground, dumping them from the rifle and slamming in a fresh one (if they can get it in without spraying live rounds all over the firing-point), stomping them into the snow as they go to the next firing-point.... and then cursing that rotten old Lee-Enfield because the "F%%#^*ing THING DOES NOTHING BUT F&^%$#G JAM!!!". I have even had a guy BORROW 3 mags from me for a match. He even gave ONE of them back. Guess I am just SO lucky.

If you have a CLLE, SMLE, Number 1, Number 4, Number 5, Lightweight, or even a super-rare Australian Number 6, the rifle reloads FASTER with Chargers. That was the reason for the invention of the Charger in the first place: to allow the Magazine to remain IN PLACE where it could not get the Lips damaged.

Supplying spare Magazines was TRIED and did not work out, for the reasons above. The Lee-Metford Mark II had the single Magazine actually CHAINED to the Rifle. It could come out just far enough to be cleaned..... and not far enough that you could SLAM it back into place.

That should give some folks just a TINY hint.
 
smellie said:
Over the past 8 years, I have answered a LOT of threads with complaints about Failure to Feed in the Lee-Enfield rifle.

Nearly all of them could be traced to magazines being swapped, dropped and plopped instead of being left IN the rifles.

Properly fitted and adjusted, they will feed flawlessly even with crappy modern ammunition which lacks the gentle RIM BEVEL you find on early military ammo. That Bevel was there to enable misloaded rounds to slip OVER the lower rounds..... and feed flawlessly.

IN the rifle, the feed lips cannot get bent. They are only thin sheet-metal and they bend easily, especially when DROPPED. Or knocked off the table. Or diddled with by some genius who knew more than James Paris Lee. Magazines were a critical and expensive component. They were (until the deep-drawn Number 4 Rifle Magazine came out) hand-made and individually-fitted to a particular Rifle. They were not serialled because it was recognised that they were somewhat fragile. Unit Armourers maintained a small supply of Magazines but these were not SPARES: they were REPLACEMENTS and were to be fitted BY THE ARMOURER.

I have seen guys show up at matches with pockets bulging with magazines in order that they might do a 'fast reload', dropping magazines on the ground, dumping them from the rifle and slamming in a fresh one (if they can get it in without spraying live rounds all over the firing-point), stomping them into the snow as they go to the next firing-point.... and then cursing that rotten old Lee-Enfield because the "F%%#^*ing THING DOES NOTHING BUT F&^%$#G JAM!!!". I have even had a guy BORROW 3 mags from me for a match. He even gave ONE of them back. Guess I am just SO lucky.

If you have a CLLE, SMLE, Number 1, Number 4, Number 5, Lightweight, or even a super-rare Australian Number 6, the rifle reloads FASTER with Chargers. That was the reason for the invention of the Charger in the first place: to allow the Magazine to remain IN PLACE where it could not get the Lips damaged.

Supplying spare Magazines was TRIED and did not work out, for the reasons above. The Lee-Metford Mark II had the single Magazine actually CHAINED to the Rifle. It could come out just far enough to be cleaned..... and not far enough that you could SLAM it back into place.

That should give some folks just a TINY hint.
Click to expand...

Good info..never thought of that
 
luke s said:
I'm surprised no one has come out with 20-30 round mags for the rifle this whole time :p
Click to expand...

I think there's an issue with a semi auto rifle they built at one time. Lee Enfield mags are specifically limited to ten, they were given an exception to the pinned to five rule due to the rarity of the semi auto (whose name escapes me) and the prevalence of Lee Enfields in this country.
 
Two things nixed the large-capacity magazines for the Lee-Enfield AND the Mauser: expense and BULK.

I have one of the Bing of Nuremberg Mauser magazine extensions (an original, not a repro). It expands the capacity of a Gew 98 to 25 rounds. So let's look at it just a bit:

Gewehr 98: 9-1/2 pounds
Sling: 1 pound
Bayonet: 1-1/2 pounds for the "Butcher Blade", not a lot less for the proper "Quill" blade.
Magazine Extension: 1 more pound
Extra 20 rounds of ammo: another pound and a quarter, added to the third of a pound regular ammunition weight.

We are now up to over 14 pounds for the rifle, battle-ready. The long magazine is right where your hand should be for convenient shooting from a rest or parapet. It snags on everything. You need a high (vulnerable) shooting position.... and when you have 3 million guys with SMLEs shooting at you with serious intent, the lowest position possible is the best of a bad lot.

But the Mauser had a built-in box magazine which held 5 rounds very safely and did not get in the way. It was an infringement of the Lee Patent, but that tiny detail got settled.

The Lee RIFLE already held DOUBLE the capacity of the Mauser and could be reloaded from Chargers FASTER than the Mauser. Take both rifles to the range and time it for yourself with 10 rounds from each rifle.

My old friend Jack Snow (Newfoundland Regiment) told me that Fritz had WITHDRAWN the Mauser extension magazine well BEFORE he was taken prisoner (April 27, 1917). But Jack escaped from the POW camp and headed into Russia in an effort to reach Allied help. Conditions in Russia were so dangerous and so unsettled and confused, that he and his two friends gave themselves up to the Imperial German Army in the early Fall of 1918, during the German pull-out after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Were they abused by the filthy Krauts? I would say so. Said Jack, "Fritz kept us drunk all the way to Heilsberg!" Heilsberg was the POW clearing station not far from Koenigsberg in East Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia).

But one thing Jack said was that some of the Germans he travelled with still had the magazine extensions on their Mausers AT THAT TIME (September, 1918). Conditions in the East must have favoured such a device because they all were ordered turned in and scrapped more than a year previously.

This does not even address the technique of using the Mauser Magazine Extension. You removed the Floorplate, Follower and Spring from your rifle, clipped them together with the little tin Clip provided and put the assembly in your pocket, then attached the Extension Magazine and released the Follower to slam upwards INTO the rifle. THEN you stripped in 25 rounds. The thing fit loosely and had a SLOT in the side; it would admit a truly-WONDERFUL mount of MUD.

"In war, that which is simplest is that which is best. What I have seen here is not simple." - FM Paul von Hindenburg

The Wooden Titan was referring to the war plan, but the principle holds for a soldier's equipment. The high-capacity magazines were more hindrance than help.... and so they disappeared..... on both sides.
 
Last edited:
BEFORE charger loading, an extra magazine was issued since reloading otherwise was one round at a time. Rather a sticky situation in case of a cavalry attack or the enemy getting too close. That is also why the magazine was chained to the rifle so you wouldn't lose when you installed the spare
Standard practice back then was to keep the cut off engaged and single load until rapid fire was ordered. Once charger loading became standard, the cut off was no longer necessary though "we have always done it that way" lingered on even into early WW1. Even after the great war, cut offs were reinstalled on a few rifles.

Of course this did not apply to cavalry carbines since a magazine would not retain the cartridges if it was not in the carbine. But then you always had a sabre!

Oh by the way, 20 round "trench magazines" were issued. Rather unwieldy once you left the trench! They were withdrawn at the end of the war and disposed of. A REALLY RARE item if you come across one. They had a leather carrying pouch which is even more of a rare item I remember seeing on ONE another forum years ago
 
Last edited:
At this distance of time, as has been said before, almost every Lee Enfield has been fiddled around with and used considerably, so it's a good idea to take your mags out and check the lips, spring, platform, retaining lug etc., especially the lips. Personally I've never felt any reluctance to take mags in or out, it's one of the convenient aspects of the Lee Enfield design. With some the lower edges of the feed lips are pretty rough, in which case you can take out out the platform (push down at the back end until the forward end pops out) and polish the lower edges of the lips with some fine emery paper wrapped around a 1/4" dowel or a chopstick. Round diamond hones work well too.

Excellent overview here: http://towhichireplied.########.ca/2009/06/enfield-magazine-feed-lips.html

They should look like this:

DSC00093-03.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom