Some Lee Enfield gunroom artifacts...

[Claven2]

You know, I’d never actually tried it. I just did on 3 different no.4 rifles from different makers, and none of them could be fully installed incorrectly, some got closer than others. On one gun I got it on part way but would not rotate enough to lock in place.

Maybe it’s just one piece of gun lore that is untrue? I’ve heard it often enough over the years I had assumed it to be correct, but it’s not something I can repeat with my bayonet on my rifles.

Now if the back of the Bakelite (or fiberglass?) grip panels were worn, damaged, etc I think it would likely go on. Maybe that was the concern? I’m not sure.

 

[jtaylor]

Some great additions John! What are the protrusion gauge markings in terms of min/max protrusion values?

Firing Pin Protrusion for all .303 Enfields and FNs is Low 0.40 and High is 0.50. This one marked as such.
I can't remember what it was for the .22 rifle. I do remember the .22 ammo was greased until about 1967 then we got glorious clean winchester ammo not greased. The grease used to cause 2 problems. The first was that it used to build up under the extractor and cause extractions to fail. So we used a target or cloth edge to clean it out. On an odd occasion grease build up on the bolt head would cause enough head space that the bolt wouldn't close. Oil and a tooth brush was kept at every range to fix everything quickly. SMG is 035 to 037. 105 Howitzer is 180 to205.
Just found the .22 - - 024 to 031. Original #7 .22 ammo box of 50 rds in 1944 had a green top. Smaller white box of 50 rds in the 1960's marked "propery of DND" all over. Winchester came in Winchester boxes with 50rds individauuly placed in a divider. A box of 10 small boxes we used to call a 'brick'. The best fun I ever had. JOHN T.

 

[jtaylor]

You know, I’d never actually tried it. I just did on 3 different no.4 rifles from different makers, and none of them could be fully installed incorrectly, some got closer than others. On one gun I got it on part way but would not rotate enough to lock in place.

Maybe it’s just one piece of gun lore that is untrue? I’ve heard it often enough over the years I had assumed it to be correct, but it’s not something I can repeat with my bayonet on my rifles.

Now if the back of the Bakelite (or fiberglass?) grip panels were worn, damaged, etc I think it would likely go on. Maybe that was the concern? I’m not sure.

Remember Gents. At the factory Long Branch rifles were zeroed with spike bayonets ON. John T.

 

[FoymountFarm]

Claven2 showed and mentioned the Singer made No4 Mk1 cruciform bayonets marked SM and SMC. Here's another version of the Cruciform No4 Mk1 bayonet. It is a true Singer that was refurbished, best I can figure from available information, circa 1946 - mid 1950's. The Singer marks were removed and replaced with the markings seen. The internet is short on details as to the who, where and why of the refurb. However, the legitimacy of these starting out as real, original Singer No4 Mk1 marked bayonets has apparently been confirmed by Graham Priest, author of Spirit of the Pike, Ralph Cobb of Worldbayonets.com and Carl Ziegler, aka old-smithy (passed in 2020). Actual known numbers in existence are apparently low but more seem surface regularly. (marked No4 Mk1 above an 8 and K under a broad arrow. Reverse side marked JS2).

 

[jtaylor]

Gentlemen! Start your bookcases.

My preferred references for Lee Enfields are Charles "Chip" Stratton's 'For Collectors Only' series, Vol 2 Lee Enfield No.4 and No.5 Rifles, and the often overlooked Major EGB Reynolds' 1960 "The Lee Enfield Rifle". Skennerton is a great coffee table book, but IMHO, his scholarship is lacking especially for Canadian production. For No.4(T) rifles I go to Peter Laidler's books. He has his prejudices and writes with an authoritative tone that is not necessarily always the complete story. Clive Law's 'Without Warning' is brief but valued.

In the words of someone more profound than me, the man who has never read one book is uninformed, but the man who has read one book is misinformed.

Hi Maple Leaf eh. I am John Taylor and I helped Ian a bit back in 1982 with the LE Book. 43 years ago. In regards to the Canadian section there were simply no production records to be found. A scattering of documents never showed up. So much of the Canadian section had to be construed by various experienced and knowledgeable Canadians that can't be found today. Ian sold his collection in Australia to write that LE book. Even then he had to accept a far East publisher because of cost. This was a time before computers. Ian and his then wife Jan took work contracts in England where records were located in 3 different places. He spent a few years composing in his spare time that book for us to use. Only Reynolds abridged book was on hand at the time. Stratton is riding on not only Ian's coat-tails but also on the dedication of many others. Ian has written near 40 books and all are a pure information treasure. I also assisted Clive Law and there are some of my items photographed in there. I know Ian sacrificed a lot to get us that book as he is dedicated to the the science we both admire.
If his scholarship in your opinion is lacking then so were many experienced others who contributed. Cheers.

 

[Claven2]

In my view, the only thing Stratton did better than skennerton is to illustrate parts variations and assign usable type numbers. But mostly his books are pablum compared to skennerton’s gourmet fare.

 

[jtaylor]

Hi Maple Leaf eh. I am John Taylor and I helped Ian a bit back in 1982 with the LE Book. 43 years ago. In regards to the Canadian section there were simply no production records to be found. A scattering of documents never showed up. So much of the Canadian section had to be construed by various experienced and knowledgeable Canadians that can't be found today. Ian sold his collection in Australia to write that LE book. Even then he had to accept a far East publisher because of cost. This was a time before computers. Ian and his then wife Jan took work contracts in England where records were located in 3 different places. He spent a few years composing in his spare time that book for us to use. Only Reynolds abridged book was on hand at the time. Stratton is riding on not only Ian's coat-tails but also on the dedication of many others. Ian has written near 40 books and all are a pure information treasure. I also assisted Clive Law and there are some of my items photographed in there. I know Ian sacrificed a lot to get us that book as he is dedicated to the the science we both admire.
If his scholarship in your opinion is lacking then so were many experienced others who contributed. Cheers.

Sight Adjustment Tools. Top left is probably a Canadian made tool for the SMLE rifle. Not of standard pattern and unmarked.
Top right is the tool for the P-14. Maybe called the No.2 tool. Marked on top M/183 over RM .303 over Inch over Pattern over
1914. Bottom left ia a Canadian made tool that appears to be a hideous casting marked on top No.3 over Rifle No. 4. A close up of the C broad arrow and contractor's illegible logo in next pic. Bottom right is the tool for the No. 5. Marked on the side
No. 4 Rifle No. 5. Slighty confusing isn't it? John T.

 

[Fox]

A friend of mine was given a pile of ammo the other day, there was a packet of 1900 ammo and he sent along a packet of 1919 Mk VII for my collection, also the paper wrapper for machine gun ammo, I will try to update with pictures tomorrow.

 

[jtaylor]

Sight Adjustment Tools. Top left is probably a Canadian made tool for the SMLE rifle. Not of standard pattern and unmarked.
Top right is the tool for the P-14. Maybe called the No.2 tool. Marked on top M/183 over RM .303 over Inch over Pattern over
1914. Bottom left ia a Canadian made tool that appears to be a hideous casting marked on top No.3 over Rifle No. 4. A close up of the C broad arrow and contractor's illegible logo in next pic. Bottom right is the tool for the No. 5. Marked on the side
No. 4 Rifle No. 5. Slighty confusing isn't it? John T.

The first pattern of a Cutaway. Serial No 70 stamped on top of body, barrel, and bolt. You can actually unscrew the Metford barrel by hand and with the 2 holes drilled thru the chamber one can see a cartridge seating. No butt plate as is standard. Mk II Lee Metford butt with Enfield roundel. 1st Pattern mag cut off. Notice even the bolt head and the cocking piece have cut away viewing ports. A rare item in fine condition. It has been said that these cutaways are a tool for armourers. I'm pretty sure that is BS. These were educational assists for instructors so that young lads unfamiliar with firearms could see how it works
and also identify the names of the parts when so instructed.

I have made several entries on Claven2's post. All with pink backgrounds to try to prevent picture theft which I have had an issue with in the past. I heartily accept his apology to clear up a misunderstanding but I personally feel this collecting field is a science that attracts several very smart and experienced people and if this site allows degradating comments then you will lose them. The attitude should be humble and respectfull for all. I also made a mistake in describing the hold open for the Lewis Gun on one of Claven2's posts. I remember now there was a slotted strip of metal on both sides of the body that one could use the upset to slide down the strip with a cut-out over the cocking piece. The cocking handle could be placed on either side of the body. John T.

 

[maple_leaf_eh]

Hi Maple Leaf eh. I am John Taylor and I helped Ian a bit back in 1982 with the LE Book. 43 years ago. In regards to the Canadian section there were simply no production records to be found. A scattering of documents never showed up. So much of the Canadian section had to be construed by various experienced and knowledgeable Canadians that can't be found today. .....
If his scholarship in your opinion is lacking then so were many experienced others who contributed. Cheers.

I referred to Skennerton as coffee table material, but not necessarily as a pejorative. He did his best and it shows, but I grew up near Sherbrooke, Quebec and no one ever mentioned an REL plant making scopes. He lost credibility with me on that one.

 

[Fox]

Here are the pictures of the paper packets, pretty cool.

 

[jtaylor]

MkI & MkII Long Lee sight protector

View attachment 1004173View attachment 1004174View attachment 1004175View attachment 1004176

MkI & MkII Long Lee sight protector

View attachment 1004173View attachment 1004174View attachment 1004175View attachment 1004176

Hi 5th Batt. You may have noticed but after these sliding steel sight covers came out production of new rifles was altered
by having the rear of the foresight ramp squared off so these covers would not slide up the ramp. John T.

 

[jtaylor]

Hi 5th Batt. You may have noticed but after these sliding steel sight covers came out production of new rifles was altered
by having the rear of the foresight ramp squared off so these covers would not slide up the ramp. John T.

A rather nice pic of Bayonets No. 7 Mk I L (Land). I had to steal from the net for this info. Grips are made of PAXOLIN
which is a resin impregnated cloth. 176,000 made between '44 and '48. Once it was found out that the bayonet if not fully
locked in position can rotate on the barrel of the no 4 service rifle and firing blows the ring. Some bayonets modified for the EM-2 (reduced muzzle ring - rifle also designated the No 9). Mostly used on the Mk V sten and for ceremonial purpose. Many are not aware that a black handled version exists but rare in Canada. Maybe a black handle is good for black ops. You decide. John T.

 

[terrylee]

View attachment 1005854

 

[5THBATT]

Hi 5th Batt. You may have noticed but after these sliding steel sight covers came out production of new rifles was altered
by having the rear of the foresight ramp squared off so these covers would not slide up the ramp. John T.

Had a look at my Long Lees 1892, 1893, 1896, 1901 & 1902 & the front sight blocks are all are pretty much identical with none being "squared off" all have original barrels, will do some photos

 

[milsurpo]

I referred to Skennerton as coffee table material, but not necessarily as a pejorative. He did his best and it shows,

I think we all know not to hold our collective breath waiting for anything better to ever be published (but feel free to try). Short of living for months near Kew or the Royal Armouries, etc., there's no possible way for anyone to improve upon it. While his books are not peer reviewed or vetted like traditional scholarly works, he gives them credibility by printing large amounts of the supporting reference material, which is not generally available for review by the public—very little archived material has been digitized for easy access. For a world-wide audience the amount of coverage given to the Canadian efforts was totally appropriate.

milsurpo

 

[jtaylor]

Had a look at my Long Lees 1892, 1893, 1896, 1901 & 1902 & the front sight blocks are all are pretty much identical with none being "squared off" all have original barrels, will do some photos

Hi 5th Batt. Canada got 40K LE rifles Mk I in 1896 so no others were ever purchased. 15K of those were sold to NZ at the beginning of WW1. So almost all the Long Lees here are the same model just different manufacturers. All came with brass muzzle covers and 1896 bayonets. So it is hard for us to get a Mk I*. I got a lovely 1903 Mk I* out of England in the 70's
that had that squared off manufacture. It also had "2P" on the right wrist indicating 2nd pattern stock bolt (squared end) and the barleycorn fore sight central (not offset). I even remember the unit of issue. Unfortunately I sold it. But I remember seeing a 1902 service rifle with that same square off at the back that wasn't an alteration in another collection. I know that 2 rifles do not confirm a pattern but it does make sense. I have an extra brass muz cover for sale if you want one. I don't like those
steel sliding sight protectors as they wear off the bluing and are hard to put on and take off. John T.

 

[5THBATT]

View attachment 1005854

Hi 5th Batt. Canada got 40K LE rifles Mk I in 1896 so no others were ever purchased. 15K of those were sold to NZ at the beginning of WW1. So almost all the Long Lees here are the same model just different manufacturers. All came with brass muzzle covers and 1896 bayonets. So it is hard for us to get a Mk I*. I got a lovely 1903 Mk I* out of England in the 70's
that had that squared off manufacture. It also had "2P" on the right wrist indicating 2nd pattern stock bolt (squared end) and the barleycorn fore sight central (not offset). I even remember the unit of issue. Unfortunately I sold it. But I remember seeing a 1902 service rifle with that same square off at the back that wasn't an alteration in another collection. I know that 2 rifles do not confirm a pattern but it does make sense. I have an extra brass muz cover for sale if you want one. I don't like those
steel sliding sight protectors as they wear off the bluing and are hard to put on and take off. John T.

Here are the front sights on mine
L to R
1892 LSA MLM MkI*
1893 EFD MLM MkII
1896 LSA MLE MkI ex Canadian
1901 BSA MLE MkI*
1902 LSA MLE MkI*