Who designed the lee enfield No4 rifle

Evanguy

Evanguy

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
103   0   0
Location
Gambier Island B.C.
So i understand all about lee metords and early lee enfields.

my question isnt about who designed the lee enfield rifles. Its who actually made up what the no4 was going to look like. A totally different receiver and bolt and quite a few other things.

So what person or company was awared the contract to do that?

Eveything i search tells me about James.

If i had to guess id assume Royal small arms. Or maybe BSA
 
Hi Evenguy. RSAF Enfield designed it. Trials No. I Mk VI rifles were made 1929 and 30 and with slight improvements the first No. 4 Mk I
rifles made 1931 and 1933. All further manufacture was contracted out starting production 1941. JOHN
 
Thak you very much for the reply. Also one or two more question, what were they trying to acomplish with making the no4 over the no1?

LA and GRI didnt make the no4 rifle. Why didnt they also upgrade when England did?

And longbranch and savage didnt make a no1 rifle, was that due to needed rifles fast for ww2 so they sent out more contracts to LB and savage? But during the no1 production the other factories could keep up with the demand?

Clearly i need the book " the lee enfield story"
 
Lessons learned during the First World War, as well as seeing what other countries were up to is what would have led to the British beginning the trials process of updating the SMLE to the No.4.

The No.4 Mk.I* is a compromise on tolerances. If you watch some of Bloke on the Range's videos on Enfields he talks in more detail about this (I believe Rob from British Muzzle Loaders may also have a video about it...), basically it's reducing some of the tighter tolerances to allow quicker production of the rifles. Two groove barrels are quicker to make, reducing the muzzle up pressure means you can use lower grade wood, etc, etc. Studies were made at the time that showed accuracy wasn't effected enough to make them unsuitable for government work. Of course, post War these studies were made again and it was clear that the Mk.I*'s were not as accurate as the Mk.Is - which then leads into the upgrade process to Mk.IIs and Mk. 1/3s, etc.
 
why the No4, well some processes were simplified, and improved. Interchangeable and numbered boltheads, longer sight radius, bayonet 'improvements' etc..

Australia and Ishy production lines were not upgraded

Savage and Longbranch were set up with the new tooling to produce No4s, they never had No1 tooling. Although there are some No1 profiled barrels produced by LB

so with WW2 all British factories were producing No4 rifles, new factories in Canada and US also produced No4 rifles. The old production lines in Australia and India continued to produce No1 rifles.

also many No1 rifles were refit to meet demand. The North Africa and Italian campaigns were fought with primarily No1 rifles as there were not enough No4 rifles to outfit Divisions. D-Day invasion was where the No4 rifle really made its debut
 
Forgotten weapons on Youtube has a very nice video regarding the development of the No.4. He displays four different rifles, all showcase the evolution from the No.1 to the NO.4. Search for the "No.1 MK6"

Essentially, the No.4 Concept started off with the NO.1 Mk5, then that evolved into the NO.1 Mk6, that was later re-designated the No.4 rifle. It was produced to address some issues with the NO.1 as well as make it easier to produce. For example the receiver on the No.4 is more angular with an integrated charger bridge which is easier to produce then the rounded No.1 receiver where the charger bridge was riveted on, and the barrels were made heavier to remove the need for complex bedding system that used springs on the No.1, among other things.

They also incorporated several upgrades such as the rear aperture sight that was a very popular feature with the P14 rifle.
 
woodchopper said:
The North Africa and Italian campaigns were fought with primarily No1 rifles as there were not enough No4 rifles to outfit Divisions. D-Day invasion was where the No4 rifle really made its debut
Click to expand...

We were one of the exceptions there - by the time of Op HUSKY, 1st Div was equipped with No 4s. Canadian transition from the No 1 began in Nov 42. Mysteriously, the Army official history says LBs only became available in Jun 43, despite something like 350,000 being produced by then. I don't have the official history of Munitions and Supply handy to see what it says. Odd that 1 Div would seem to have then been re equipped with British and US made rifles, unless they were switched for LBs literally just prior to getting in the boats for Sicily.
 
flashman2 said:
We were one of the exceptions there - by the time of Op HUSKY, 1st Div was equipped with No 4s. Canadian transition from the No 1 began in Nov 42. Mysteriously, the Army official history says LBs only became available in Jun 43, despite something like 350,000 being produced by then. I don't have the official history of Munitions and Supply handy to see what it says. Odd that 1 Div would seem to have then been re equipped with British and US made rifles, unless they were switched for LBs literally just prior to getting in the boats for Sicily.
Click to expand...

Now I'm going to have to do some digging. I have to pull some photos from the Italian campaign to see what rifles we were using.

I know we lost most of our transport and had to reissue ourselves with trucks 'borrowed' mostly from the Americans :) Speaking of which Thompsons were borrowed as well :)
 
woodchopper said:
Now I'm going to have to do some digging. I have to pull some photos from the Italian campaign to see what rifles we were using.

I know we lost most of our transport and had to reissue ourselves with trucks 'borrowed' mostly from the Americans :) Speaking of which Thompsons were borrowed as well :)
Click to expand...

No digging needed... it was No 4s for the Canadians in Italy. I don't believe I've ever seen a pic of a Canadian with a No 1 there. Conversely as you say I don't think I've ever seen a pic of the Brits or Indians in Italy with them.

My question is where did the first 350k or so LBs go if they were first issued to Canadians in Jul 43? Seems odd that they would have been kept in Canada so long when 1st Division was in England re equipping with them for HUSKY, and even weirder if they went to other Commonwealth countries and we got Brit/US No 4s to go to Sicily. I'm sure it must be covered in the Dept of Munition and Supply history.

Thompsons were surely "borrowed," but they also came included with US built tanks. That's why you see Brit vehicle crews using US tanks with them in North Africa. The US tanks came all ready to go with the complete vehicle EIS packed inside. Just add fuel and ammo and crew and go. Maybe our pattern radios too, I guess they wouldn't have come with 11 or 19 sets.
 
I don't think there was any particular effort to issue LB made rifles, machine carbines or lmgs to Canadian troops overseas.
For example, photos of Cdn. snipers overseas with No. 4T rifles show British rifles.
 
tiriaq said:
I don't think there was any particular effort to issue LB made rifles, machine carbines or lmgs to Canadian troops overseas.
For example, photos of Cdn. snipers overseas with No. 4T rifles show British rifles.
Click to expand...

No, right, definitely not... but where did the early LBs go then? I suppose one possibility is that there was simply higher priority stuff to send over on the convoys in 42 and the first half of 43 so they weren't sent over until mid 43. I'm not sure that makes a ton of sense though, because then we have the situation where Canadians heading for Sicily are given new, presumably British made No 4s to replace their No 1s, while the British carry on using the old rifle? There's pics even into mid 1944 with British infantry in Italy all armed with the No 1. If the LBs made it over before mid 43, then why did the British carry on using the No 1 while Canadians got the new rifle?

By the time of Op HUSKY, LB had made enough No 4s to equip like 20 divisions. There were enough LB No 4s alone to equip every Canadian and British infantry division in Italy twice over.
 
Looking at the Small Arms Training pamphlet No. 3 - Rifle, 1942 - the main focus is still on the venerable SMLE, but the No.4 is introduced as the "sniper rifle". I don't have any other wartime manuals but by the Infantry Training manual of 1955 the No.4 is the rifle...

The Canadians participating in Operation Husky were of the 1st Div., who had been overseas from late 1939/early 1940 - who better to reequip with new arms than a division that had been initially sent to Blighty with obsolete or non-existent gear. Give the boys the newest and best arms, get them trained up and in '43 send them to the Med.
 
flashman2 said:
No, right, definitely not... but where did the early LBs go then? I suppose one possibility is that there was simply higher priority stuff to send over on the convoys in 42 and the first half of 43 so they weren't sent over until mid 43. I'm not sure that makes a ton of sense though, because then we have the situation where Canadians heading for Sicily are given new, presumably British made No 4s to replace their No 1s, while the British carry on using the old rifle? There's pics even into mid 1944 with British infantry in Italy all armed with the No 1. If the LBs made it over before mid 43, then why did the British carry on using the No 1 while Canadians got the new rifle?

By the time of Op HUSKY, LB had made enough No 4s to equip like 20 divisions. There were enough LB No 4s alone to equip every Canadian and British infantry division in Italy twice over.
Click to expand...

I suspect that goods were shipped to the UK where they were stockpiled until needed; then issued without any concern over nationality of troops receiving the issue.
 
tiriaq said:
I suspect that goods were shipped to the UK where they were stockpiled until needed; then issued without any concern over nationality of troops receiving the issue.
Click to expand...

Right, but then if there was a stockpile of No 4s in Britain prior to HUSKY, why didn't British divisions have them for the invasion? Why would they bother using critical shipping space to get them there only to not issue them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom