Talk:Lee-Enfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
More information...
PEER This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Related task forces...
 British military history task force
Indian military history task force
Weaponry task force
World War I task force
World War II task force
To-do list for Lee-Enfield: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • A decent photo of an SMLE Mk III. There must be a Public Domain photo of one somewhere! I'll have a look and see what I can turn up, but chances are, if it's Public Domain, it's probably a WWII propaganda photo (or of that vintage).
  • Similarly, some photos of Lee-Enfields being used by the Nepalese would be nice- there are some on the 'net, but the copyright implications may make using them unviable.
  • Some info on the SMLE Mk III* (HT) and No 4 Mk I (T) Sniper Rifles. I may do this myself over the next few days, but there really isn't a lot to say about them except they were standard-issue rifles with telescopic sights and cheek-pieces mounted on them...
  • Some info on the Australian International Arms No. 4 Mk IV- a modern reproduction of the No 4 Mk II rife, manufactured by an Australian company with modern parts.
  • More pictures- troops using the Lee-Enfield in combat, for example.
  • Bayonets- Pattern '07, No. 4 Spike Bayonet, No. 9 Blade Bayonet, Jungle Carbine Bayonet. Doesn't have to be much- just some photos and a caption, even.
  • Find a decent image of an Ishapore 2A1 rifle for use in relevant infobox
  • Generally continue to improve article

Would it not be better to split the history up into models rather than periods?Veritas Panther 10:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know if the external link is temporarily down, or permanently gone? (in which case it should be removed)

Probably best to remove it. I'm the one that added it to the article, and at the time it was a bit spotty (shame to, it was one of the most descriptive I've seen). Oberiko 23:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The most glaring errors are:

"By D-Day (6.06.44) the lighter No. 4 SMLE was in use." The No 4 rifle is not an SMLE. The SMLE was renamed the No 1 rifle after which there were the No 2, No 3 and No 4 rifles.

"The main change was to expose 2" of barrel at the muzzle onto which fitted the new socket bayonet. This looked like a shiny 7" nail." The main change was to redesign the rifle to simplify manufacture, chnage from the v-sight to an aperture sight and increase the sight radius. The bayonet is not shiny - shiny is abhorent to the military - the bayonet is blued.

"Also post 1945, the No. 8 or "jungle carbine" was developed for use in Malaya and other similar campaigns" The name jungle carbine is a post-war marketing appelation designed to make the rifle attractive to americans. The correct name is the No 5 rifle (that is a number FIVE).

"the rifle was shortened by about 7" " The rifle was shortened by precisely 4.9"

"This rifle was probably designed at the Royal Enfield Small Arms Factory" This rifle was not designed - it was merely a lightened No 4 rifle. The trials lightened rifles were certainly prepared at the Royal Enfield Small Arms Factory and tested at Bisley but production of the No 5 rifle was carried out at ROF Fazakerly and BSA Shirley. --(anon, from village pump)

The Name "Jungle Carbine" was actually in use amongst Commonwealth Forces during WWII. Several Australian Diggers and Kiwi soldiers insist the rifle was known as that during WWII, because it was a carbine and generally used in the jungles of the Pacific and South-East Asia. The name was later used by the Santa Fe Arms Company to sell modified No. 4 Rifles on the US commercial market, but it's not an American invention. However, the name "Jungle Carbine" was never official and the rifle was only ever referred to as "Rifle, No. 5 Mark I". Commander Zulu 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could dig up a photo and the stats for the SMLE No Mk III? I'm still relatively new at Wikipedia, otherwise I'd do it myself. It seems a bit on an omission that the data is all for the No 4 Mk I, especially since, to most people outside North America, "Lee-Enfield" means the SMLE... Commander Zulu 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does the figure of 7,334,236 rifles as total production (all marks) come from? Ian Skennerton's The Lee-Enfield Story makes no mention of a total number of rifles- indeed, every source I've ever seen says that no-one knows exactly how many Lee-Enfields were made because they didn't always keep exact records, especially after the BSA plant was bombed in 1940. Commander Zulu 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Commander Zulu, I suspect the production info is derived from Stratton's book on the SMLE. The production totals in that book can be taken with however large a grain of salt as you may like, though they are the closest to an authoritative figure one is likely to find.

Has anyone ever heard of the MLE referred to as the "emily"? I have not encountered a reference to this in either Skennerton or Reynolds, nor anywhere else.

No, I've never heard of the MLE being referred to as the "Emily", although it does make sense. In Australia & NZ the MLE is generally referred to as either the "Long Lee" or "Long Tom" Commander Zulu 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've amended the "Service Period" on both Lee-Enfield boxes (SMLE and No 4) to "present", as the SMLE and No 4 rifles are still in official use in India (and her neighbours), as well as unofficially in many other parts of the former British Empire. Commander Zulu 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone can point me in the right direction for more info on this carbine? heqs 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Heqs - that looks a lot like an extensively modified Pattern 1914/Model 1917 rifle. (Which would be determined by caliber.) The guess is based on the shape of the bolt handle and the Enfield reference. Not sure why it would be called a Ross - those are straight-pull rifles.

Contents

[edit] Changes & Edits

Some fairly noticeable changes here- I hope no-one objects too much.

The most obvious one should be that the Lee-Enfield's history and development is now divided up into the various Rifles, as opposed to years.

I've also included some more information on the Ishapore 2A/2A1 rifles, as well as adding their calibres to the info box for the SMLE rifle- it seemed a bit redundant to add another info box just to post most of the same info and mention the rifle's chambered for 7.62x51 NATO.

Although the Enfield Enforcer was made after the Ishapore 2A1, they only made two dozen of them or so, whilst the Ishapore 2A1 was an issue rifle and at least 100,000 were made (the Ishapore Arsenal being very secretive about production details and numers, so is known about their production figures is generally based on serial numbers), so it seems appropriate to call the Ishapore 2A1 "The Last Lee-Enfield".

The section on Khyber Pass Copies has also been expanded- admittedly, most of it is from my wikipedia article on the Martini-Enfield, but I believe the information is sound and there are Khyber Pass Lee-Enfields showing up in the US at the moment, so it seems important to mention that it's really not a good idea to shoot the "Khyber Pass Specials" with commercial ammo.

There's also a mention of the No 4 Mk I and No 4 Mk I (T) being in Battlefield:1942, which doesn't seem inappropriate given that there are also mentions of Call of Duty and some comics/graphic novels there as well.

There's still a bit more work to be done- primarily:

  • A decent photo of an SMLE Mk III. There must be a Public Domain photo of one somewhere! I'll have a look and see what I can turn up, but chances are, if it's Public Domain, it's probably a WWII propaganda photo (or of that vintage).
  • Similarly, some photos of Lee-Enfields being used by the Nepalese would be nice- there are some on the 'net, but the copyright implications may make using them unviable.
  • Some info on the SMLE Mk III* (HT) and No 4 Mk I (T) Sniper Rifles. I may do this myself over the next few days, but there really isn't a lot to say about them except they were standard-issue rifles with telescopic sights and cheek-pieces mounted on them...

Anyway, those are the major changes- I'm sure you'll agree they are an improvement, but if anyone's got other suggestions, do share them! I'm sure we can get this up to "Featured Article" level without too much effort... --Commander Zulu 16:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

-- More changes today- I've added a "To-do" list, as well as a paragraph on the SMLE Mk III* (HT) and No 4 Mk I (T) Sniper Rifles, and a paragraph on the Australian International Arms No 4 Mk IV modern reproduction of the No 4 Mk I rifle. I've also added a photo of the wristguard markings of a LSA Co. manufactured SMLE Mk III* rifle, just to give some illustration to the "Manufacturers" section. --Commander Zulu 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Edited some comments posted to the effect that the SMLE only saw "limited" service during WWII, as this clearly isn't true. The entire Australian and Indian armies were armed with the SMLE, as were New Zealand (until 1942 or so, when they started getting No 4 Mk I* rifles from Canada), and the UK, who weren't able to replace the SMLE until 1941- and even then, they kept issuing the SMLE right up to the end of WWII from existing stocks. I'd hardly call that "Limited service in WWII." --Commander Zulu 14:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Minor edit on the Ishapore 2A1 section, changing the production commencement date from "After the Korean War" to "Just after the Sino-Indian War", and changing last known production date to 1975, instead of the 1970 stated earlier, as later dated Ishapore 2A1s have been found. --Commander Zulu 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Added a photo of an SMLE Mk III rifle, and a close-up of the action, showing the magazine cut-off. A big thank you to Coggansfield over at Gunboards.com for kindly giving permission to use his excellent pictures! --Commander Zulu 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Shame it's had the handguard fingers cut off.
    • Quite a few of them have- they were rather prone to breaking, IIRC. Doesn't affect the "originality" of the rifle, and original Mk III configuration SMLEs aren't all that common. --Commander Zulu 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Word on Calibre Designations

Someone keeps adding the metric equivalent of Imperial calibre designations, so I'd like to state here: PLEASE DO NOT ADD THE METRIC EQUIVALENT OF FIREARM CALIBRES TO THIS ARTICLE,unless the calibre in question is metric to begin with. This could also be said of most firearms articles on Wikipedia, too, for that matter.

For example, .303 British is also known as "Cartridge .303 Mk VII SAA Ball". It is NOT called "7.7x56R", and "7.7mm" generally refers to the calibre 7.7mm Arisaka. Having the metric equivalent is just confusing- if you walked into a gunshop and asked for a box of "7.7x56R" cartridges, no-one would have the slightest idea what you were talking about. The same thing goes for asking for a box of "7.62x63" cartridges. I doubt there's a gun shop anywhere in the UK, North America, Australia, NZ, or South Africa that could tell you that you really meant ".30-06"

Adding the metric equivalent doesn't add anything to the article, except to clutter it up with useless information. So please, don't edit this article if all you're going to do is add the fact that .303 British is a 7.7mm bullet in the metric system. Thank you. --Commander Zulu 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Commander Zulu - then why are my boxes of South African surplus .303 all labelled 7.7x56R? Like it or not, that is a formal and accepted name for the cartridge.

  • Not in the UK (where the rifle was invented and manufactured), Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or the USA. Skennerton makes no mention of the calibre being called anything but either .303 or .303 Mk (whatever) SAA Ball, and every firearm reference book I've ever seen follows the same pattern. If it is sold by a manufacturer in South Africa as 7.7x56R -perhaps it's something to do with differentiating the surplus .303 ammo from some of the odd Cape Rifle calibres?- then it would be more appropriate as brief mention in the main text, rather than in the info box. The last box of Pretoria Metal Pressings .303 ammunition I shot had ".303" as the headstamp, as did the South African manufactued PMC .303 ammunition, though.--Commander Zulu 03:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then why is "7.7mm" edited back in? I fail to see why the accepted alternate metric designation is omitted when measurements are also included in metric. After all, Imperial measurement was what was used to design and build the rifle. Either use metric as a parenthetical alternative for everything, or for nothing, but be consistent.
      • I didn't notice that, but I've corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out! As you say, I'm trying to keep the calibre designations in Imperial, since that's what the rifle was designed and built for. --Commander Zulu 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] range

according to the collins eyewitness guides book 'Battle' the lee enfield actually had an effective range of 1097m (3,600ft) considering its from a published source i thought the page needed to be corrected.

  • Thanks for that! "Effective Range" is a rather vague concept for a battle rifle like the Lee-Enfield or the Mauser, of course- whilst it's quite possible to accurately hit paper targets at ranges of up to 1000m or so with a Lee-Enfield, seeing a man-sized target through the sights at that range is hard enough, never mind hitting it! However, since the rifle will shoot accurately (and have enough stopping power to knock down the target if it hits) at that range, I'd say that an edit to reflect an effective range of 1000m or so is more than reasonable.--Commander Zulu 03:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

The correct nomenclature for British Military rifles is an absolute nightmare, especially since the British changed the system three times between WWI and the Korean War. In the interests of clarity, I'm trying to keep the nomenclature of a specific rifle to whatever it was designated when it was first designed & introduced.

For example, the SMLE Mk III rifle (introduced in 1907) was redesignated "Rifle No 1 Mk III" in the mid-1920s. It would be confusing to switch usage halfway through the article, and not entirely correct to call it an "SMLE No 1 Mk III" (although it is commonly called this, it's not really accurate).

Similarly, the No 4 Mk I rifle (introduced in 1939, although not widely issued until 1941) used the system of "Rifle, No. (Arabic Numberals), Mk (Roman Numerals), but in 1944 they changed the system again (to Arabic Numerals only), hence the Rifle No 4 Mk 2.

As I said, it does get confusing, so unless anyone has any major objections, I think it's best we go with the original designation in the interests of clarity and uniformity.--Commander Zulu 14:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COD

Can anyone confirm the statement about the SMLE in COD being far too slow? AllStarZ 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems a tad on the slow side to me- but unlike the No 4 in Battlefield: 1942, it holds 10 rounds insead of 5. I suspect it's more a balance issue with the K98 than anything else (for both games), but the No 4 in BF: 1942 is definitely far too slow. --Commander Zulu 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khyber Pass Copies

I've edited this section a tad, just to stress that it really, really, really isn't a good idea to be firing Khyber Pass rifles. Until a few months ago they were largely curios bought back by travellers and returned service personnel, but now one (or more) of the major US importers has acquired a large number of them and has been selling them to the C&R Firearms community in the US- so it seems especially prudent to warn Wikipedia readers that if they come across a Khyber Pass Copy firearm, they really shouldn't be shooting it. Of course, if anyone's got any thoughts on the whole thing, I'm all ears! --Commander Zulu 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rate of fire of trained infanty with SMLE

I recall reading that the rate of fire (and accuracy?) of the trained professional British infantry man, ie a regular in the original BEF, was sufficient that in early encounters the Germans though they were up against machine guns. Are there any sources known to substantiate this? it strikes me as pertinent to the reported reluctance to adopt the machine gun at the start of the Great War. GraemeLeggett 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll have a hunt around and see if I can find a reputable source for the statement- it appears a lot in cheap books that you get from remainder bookshops and the like. My understanding is that British soldiers were trained to shoot so quickly because the British Army wouldn't buy them Machine Guns... this is the first time I've heard the theory that the Army wouldn't buy them Machine Guns because they could shoot so quickly! --Commander Zulu 01:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As you say an interesting idea, though I wouldn't go far as to say theory, but might be pertinent or at least noteworthy. No doubt the decision against wide adoption of MGs was more complex than in the article. GraemeLeggett 08:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Found the subject already mentioned under Battle of Mons!GraemeLeggett 11:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPMILHIST

I've joined the WP Military History Project (as you can see from the top of this talk page!), and had the Lee-Enfield article Peer Reviewed. Some excellent suggestions have been made, and I've taken the liberty of implementing a few of them... I think the article is looking much better now, but suggestions or ideas are always welcome!--Commander Zulu 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Can't really go further up without being properly cited ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give me some examples of things that need to be cited? Most of the stuff in the article is either common knowledge (the ballistic data for .303 can be found anywhere on the net, for example), true but not put in print anywhere readily accessible (the Lee-Enfield being the oldest service rifle still in use, for example- Designed 1889, still in use with the Indian Military & Police in 2006, as seen on TV and in the print media in India), or contained in Ian Skennerton's definitive work The Lee-Enfield Story (widely regarded by all and sundry in the Military Rifle Collecting Community as The Bible Of The Lee-Enfield)
It's the standard reference text on the subject, invoked whenever information on the Lee-Enfield is needed. Even if I did find an online source or book/magazine article to cite from, chances are the magazine article/book/website would have got it's information from The Lee-Enfield Story in the first place... which kind of creates a circular citation thing. Still, if you can point out things that specifically need citing, I'd be happy to see what I can dig up. --Commander Zulu 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine capacity on No. 4 Mark I

I am no expert on the rifle, but I have come across what might be an error regarding the magazine capacity for the No. 4 Mark I Enfield. The article says the clip holds 10 rounds; however, the rifle I have used (from 1943, if memory serves, with all original parts) has a magazine with an 11-round capacity. I discovered this when I was forced to load without the stripper clips. Is this normal? If I have the opportunity to fire it again, I'll try and see if I can load 11 in the mag and 1 extra in the chamber, or if the 11th round in the clip prevents it. --Cinder6 03:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find your rifle has a loose magazine spring- the No 4 Mk I rifle definitely only has a 10 shot magazine- at least, the magazine as issued was only ever designed to hold 10 rounds. --Commander Zulu 03:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That could be. I hadn't thought of that. We've had this rifle since the 60s, and it is extremely easy to load rounds into the mag. Just for academic purposes, I'll see if it can't hold 12 shots total this weekend. Since the stripper clips load the rounds 5 at a time, though, I'll just use 10 normally. Thanks. --Cinder6 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference to M1 Garand firing rate is wishful thinking rather than actual information. Google "new service rifle" and "garand" and you'll find out the listed numbers in this article are laughable. As is the assertion, no proof cited, that the SMLE is the fastest action bolt action military rifle. I recall a test was done after WW1 in Texas and, surprising everyone, the French rifle was actually the fastest. But hey, don't let me stop the fanboyism.

I don't own an M1 Garand (they're illegal in Australia), so I can't compare RoFs, but my SMLE and No 4 Mk I* have been mistaken for semi-autos in rapid-fire competitions. Certainly, I've heard the assertation that the Lee-Enfield has a, aimed rate of fire comparable to, or exceeding that, of the M1 Garand- and this is, I believe, in one of Skennerton's books- although I haven't got them in front of me since it's 1am here.
Anyway, if you enter "Fastest Bolt-Action Rifle Lee-Enfield" into Google, you'll get many, many, many web-based cites to the effect that the SMLE is the fastest bolt-action rifle ever made, and certainly the fastest bolt-action military rifle ever made. However, if you want book cites, I direct you to the references at the end of the article- which are from respected publications, and we can also add the opinion of noted firearms expert Ian V. Hogg: "The rear locking lugs of the bolt [on the Lee-Enfield]... allowed the bolt to be manipulated much faster and more easily than any other system" (Hogg, Ian: "The Complete Illustrated Encylopaedia of The World's Firearms", page 214. A&W Publishers, 1978). Do YOU have a cite for this "test in Texas sometime after WWI" that said "The French Rifle" was the fastest? I certainly couldn't find anything in any of my reference books to that effect. Do you have any more information from a reputable source to back this assertation up? I'd be most interested in reading more about this event. --Commander Zulu 15:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M1917 Enfield and Ross Rifle

I'm wondering if it may be prudent to remove the P14 section- seing as it's based on a Mauser action and the only thing it has in common with the L-E rifles is the same calibre and rifling- or else add a section on the Canadian Ross rifle which was another .303 rifle used by the Canadian military in WWI until all the soldiers "lost" them and grabbed SMLEs... again, the only thing it really shares in common with the L-E is the calibre, but they both often pop up in published works on the Lee-Enfield, so it's a tough call. Thoughts? --Commander Zulu 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Hogg?

You're actually citing him on small arms? The guy that couldn't tell the difference between a Krag and a 1903? That's funny. Hogg captioned a picture "American troops arrive in Europe with their Springfield 1903s." Quick glance was all it took to see the rifles were Krags. Some expert. Any novice rifle collector can tell the difference between the two easily. Hogg is a prolific author. Too bad he never bothered to learn about what he was writing about.

No, the rear locking lugs on the SMLE do not make it the fasting working bolt action rifle. The fastest is the Krag. That can be demonstrated easily by handing both rifles to a sample group and counting the number of times that they can work the action in a minute. Krag is faster. Two reasons: Krag only has one locking lug and there is not magazine follower putting tension on the bolt.

But hey, what do I know? I own examples of both.

And yes, I do have a copy of the test that took place in Texas. Unlike Hogg, they actually used the rifles for the test instead of fanboyism. They were surprised that the French rifle consistently won, totally unexpected.

Any proof that Hogg every actually saw anything other than the SMLE? Google links of web circle jerks don't prove anything. Except fanboyism. Actual tests my friend. I'll provide video to match yours video for video. Practice on your SMLE. See how many times you can work it in a minute. I'll do the same with a Krag. I know who will win as I have both.

Speed of reloading? I'll best your SMLE speed using one one with a Garand.

I provided a link to the Garand's true speed. The article makes a fanboy assertion without documentation. Fanboyism pure and simple.

The Garand comments have been removed, but FWIW, I'm not aware of a Lee-Enfield version of "M1 Thumb"... I imagine that would slow down your reloading speed if you weren't paying attention.
And what's this nonsense about the Krag being a faster rifle because the bolt can simply be worked faster? The statement "Fastest bolt-action military rifle" means "fastest when loaded with live ammunition and fired at targets", not "fastest when given to random people to see how fast they can manipulate the bolt". Similarly, I cannot see how a Lebel M1886 (the French WWI service rifle) can be faster than an SMLE Mk III*- for a start, the Lebel has a 90° bolt throw, and it loads from a tube magazine- it's a physical impossibility to get the rounds into the tubular magazine with the same speed as a charger-loaded SMLE, Mauser, or Springfield M1903.
As for Ian Hogg, I accept that his work is prolific but not always 100% accurate- so, how about this for a cite:
"Special Note On The Enfield System: The locking system on this rifle makes it the fastest operating bolt-action rifle in the world. The abrupt turning action of the Mauser system will not permit it to obtain a speed of operation possible with the Lee-Enfield". (Smith, W.H.B: 1943 Basic Manual of Military Small Arms (Facsimile Edition), page 20. Stackpole Books, 1979). From one of the foremost firearms writers and experts of the mid-20th century, in a book originally published in the middle of WWII, when the various rifles were actually being used in combat, under less than ideal conditions. Even if you dismiss Hogg (as many do- I included him as a print cite, since it was the only book I had nearby at the time), the fact is that other people- people who know what they're talking about- agree that the Lee-Enfield is the fastest military bolt-action rifle of all time, despite your assertations to the contray. YOUR Krag-Jorgensen may be super fast- hell, my SMLE will shoot ragged-hole groups at 100yds, so therefore the SMLE is also the world's most accurate bolt action rifle, right? Wrong- they're not as accurate as a Mauser, and the actions aren't as strong- but the plural of anecdote is not data. FWIW, I've handled a K-J rifle and found the bolt was comparable to my M38 Swedish Mauser- which is fast, but still noticeably slower than any of my Lee-Enfields. --Commander Zulu 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garand Drivel still not fixed

Garand drivel still not fixed by the fan boys.

"The rate of fire which can be attained is, of course, dependent to some extent upon the dexterity of the firer. The number of aimed shots at 200 yards for the average rifleman is approximately fifty per minute. The maximum for highly trained riflemen is approximately eighty per minute at this range"

Average of 50, highly trained eighty. That is aimed fire. Reference is a US Ordnance document titled "Our New Service Rifle." Copy is online here: http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1NewRifle.htm

Scott Duff is THE Garand expert. He has it here: http://www.scott-duff.com/M1NewRifle.htm

16 to 24 is a joke. I'll provide video of me putting better than 50 rounds on target in a minute with a Garand. Which of you fanboys is going to provide footage of the same thing with the SMLE?

I own both Mk4 and Mk3s. I also own Garands. No comparison, the Garand is way beyond anything the SMLE can attain.

SMLE isn't even a good rifle. Look at the screw on the back of the bolt. They are in sad shape in most rifles as if that screw works loose, and it does, the rifle becomes non-functional. I can provide video of that too.

Unlike the fanboys, I in fact own and shoot these rifles. Gew98, K98, Krag, 1903, Pattern 14, Model of 1917, both model Arisakas, JSARs, etc. SMLE isn't anything to write home about. This article is fanboyism pure and simple.

I've removed to the reference to the SMLE and the M1 Garand having comparable rates of fire since there's no empirical way of testing it, and it does seem unlikely given the semi-auto and en-bloc load features of the M1. I didn't write that statement in the article, btw.
You are entitled to your opinion on the SMLE (I don't really think the K98 Mauser is that great, but other people love to them- each to their own), but I really don't know what you mean about there being a problem with the screw on the back of the bolt or most of them being "in sad shape"- perhaps in the US, where the supply is dependent on what AIM or SOG or Navy Arms get around to importing (and which have originally been sitting in warehouses in Turkey or the former colony of Click-Cick Dirk)- but in countries where the rifles were actually made and/or issued (such as Australia) I'm not aware of any issues with the "screw on the back of the bolt". I imagine the M1 Garand stops working if the gas port clogs up, can that be considered a valid criticism of that rifle?
More importantly, if the SMLE is as terrible a rifle as you make it out to be, why is it still in service? 117 years, making it by far and away the longest serving rifle still on official issue. Maybe the Garand will catch up if it's still in service in 2063 somewhere (and it may very well be), but until then, the reality is that the SMLE has outlasted even the M91/30.
If you'd like to help improve this article- and that means having actual cites, not vague statements about "tests" conducted in Texas after WWI which hardly anyone has ever heard of, or "OMG I can shoot my M1 Garand faster than your SMLE!1!1!!" challenges, then you're welcome to register an account- you've obviously got an appreciation of Military Surplus Firearms, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history are always looking for people to help out. Perhaps you could use your knowledge of US/German service arms to help improve some of the existing articles in those fields? The help would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. --Commander Zulu 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
While the M1 Garand and the SMLE certainly did not and could not attain a similar rate of fire for obvious reasons, there is a mitigation factor here; The SMLE was designed as a fast hand-operated accurate rifle - as was proved in 1914 when the line regiments of the BEF were able to loose off 16+ aimed shots a minute. Most of the time in battle a Garand would not be aimed, and would only be used for covering fire or for effect. I will not deny that the Garand is a superior battle-rifle, however, most of those who used it in World War II and Korea were not capable of using the rifle as thousands of enthusiasts have done in their leisure time 60 years after marksmen were needed. --Harlsbottom 12:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I'm trying to keep the number of external links to a minimum, if possible- we really don't need a link to every single article on surplusrifle.com relating to the Lee-Enfield, for example... I'm sure people can search around on SurplusRifle.com if they're that interested in finding out more. --Commander Zulu 05:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ammunition et al

Commander Zulu;

If I might pick up a couple of points on reading the discussion. I fear I must disagree with you on the subject of metric designations. The format used (for example 7.62x51mm) is now the de-facto world standard for all military ammunition. At the very least, it should be included in the article. These days, the use of the MilStd designation is used to indicate rounds loaded to military specifications and for technical descriptions. Any civilian or pre-standardization designations are used to indicate non-military loads. For example, 7.62x51mm is a MilSpec round, .308 Winchester is the civilian loading (the distinction is quite important, contrary to many assertions, the two rounds are not the same). Same applies to 5.56x45mm (milspec), .223 Remington (civilian), again with very important differences in characteristics. So in the case of the Lee-Enfield, these days 7.7x56Rmm refers to Milspec ammunition - almost certainly military surplus - while .303 British refers to modern production for the civilian market.

However I do agree with you on your dismissal of the "its all the fanboy's fault" correspondent. I have very grave doubts over the authenticity of the claimed trials - if they did take place, the French rifle had to be the Berthier. It's an OK rifle - nothing to write home about - but it has a Mannlicher action and a three-round magazine. I own one of these - if you want pictures let me know. The bolt is clumsy and awkward, I can't imagine either this or the Lebel out-firing a Lee-Enfield. Also, there's a trick to handling a Lee-Enfield in fast-fire mode and I suspect the correspondent doesn't know it. Having said that, comparing the rate of fire with that of an M-1 Garand does seem to be a pretty strong stretch

Hope these thoughts help. Stuart Slade 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard .303 British referred to as anything except ".303 British" or ".303 Mk (x) SAA Ball". I'm willing to compromise on many things, but the cartridge's name is not one of them. --Commander Zulu 09:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And the limitations of your personal experience are a rational basis for trying to exclude accurate and legitimate information? Forgive my bluntness, but you do not own this page.
I've been unable to find any reliable information on the use of the name "7.7x56" for the .303 British cartridge in a military sense. The Ordnance Factory Board of India and Pakistani Ordnance Factory both say they make ".303 British" or ".303 in" ammunition, but not "7.7x56", and all the Google hits I came up with were either in a foreign (European)language or unofficial sites which appeared to be using it as a mere metric conversion. Now, if someone can come up with an official cite from the British, Australian, Indian, or other Commonwealth military to the effect that it's an official designation, then by all means I'll include it. Until then, however, I'd prefer to avoid the situation of having the calibre followed by a huge list of synonyms. IMO, the synonyms belong on the .303 British page, not the one for a rifle chambered in that calibre- even though ".303" and "Lee-Enfield" are practically synonyms. --Commander Zulu 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification; I didn't write the bit on limitations of personal experience. I do, however, agree with its sentiments.

Jane's Ammunition Handbook lists the .303 British as the 7.7x56Rmm. The metric designation is the international standard these days; its arguable that applying it to a cartridge that is long obsolete is of questionable value but that doesn't change the fact that an international standard designation system for cartridges does exist. Therefore, reference to that designation should be included (as it is in the article on the .303 British round itself). Stuart Slade 16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlton Automatic Rifle

Out of curiousity, how did the convert this bolt-gun to semi? Googling didn't turn up much.

Thanks.

The Charlton Automatic Rifle involved converting the rifle to a form of gas-operated blowback, tapping gas from the barrel to operate an (inititally external) rod which cycled the action, much like an M1 Garand or a Browning BAR. Later versions (made by Electrolux in Australia) retained the same basic system but in a considerably more streamlined and "polished" package- ie, it looked like something made by an arms factory and not something which had been knocked together in someone's shed (which the original Charltons had been!) --Commander Zulu 11:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind reply. That is great info. Ian Hogg's book Machine Guns has an interesting section on a light-machine that was developed from the Charlton. Perhaps we should add a reference?

[edit] .410 Enfield magazine & conversions

While it's true that (AFAIK) nobody has been able to get a No 1 mk III magazine to feed shells reliably, a compromise has been discovered which will allow for repeatability. This involved removing the follower and spring from a No1 Mk III magazine, cutting the back off of a Stevens/Savage .410 magazine and then stuffing the Savage magazine into the No 1 Mk. III magazine housing. This gives it a 3 shell capacity.

I'm going to add a bit of info about the .410 conversions, such as the original cartridge, typical use, etc.

[edit] In service...

re the quote "The standard Lee-Enfield rifle was replaced in front-line service with the FN FAL-derived L1A1 SLR in 1955, although it continued in service for a few years as a training and drill weapon for those who undertook National Service." Out of interest, my school's Combined Cadet Force (CCF) unit was still using No 4's for live firing when I left in 1974, and our local Sea Cadet Unit still uses DP No 4's for ceremonials. Andywebby 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/e/Talk%7ELee-Enfield_ec62.html"