Smle
 

Would someone mind answering a brief question?
The Lee Enfield rifle, in particular.
I was at the Imperial War Museum in London recently, unfortunately I didn't get to ask a curator this question about their exhibit.
They had a rifle labeled SMLE, Short Magazine Lee Enfield. I had always believed
SMLE meant Short Muzzle Lee Enfield.
Could someone enlighten me.
Cheers

Perhaps it is because the name is somewhat out of context. The full name is "Rifle, short, magazine, Lee Enfield", indicating it is a shorter rifle than normal back in the day, it was magazine fed, and of the Lee Enfield pattern. It won't be because the magazione is short.....magazine fed rifles had become the norm, and a 10 round magazine was pretty much in line with the larger capacity mags of the day. A large magazine was somewhat frowned on as it could lead to wastage amongst the troops. As such a magazine cut-off was fitted. Until the order by the Sr NCO to open the cut-off, all shots were single.

A google of "Short Muzzle Lee Enfield" leads to nothing.

The museum is right. It's ''short' because its predecessor was the 'Long Lee Enfield', 'magazine' because it had one (this set it apart from earlier British rifles like the Martini Henry and Snider Enfield that didn't) and Lee Enfield was the type. Oddly enough, British SMLE's were never marked as such, they were stamped "Sht. L.E. Mk.III or Mk.III*" and it was only the Australians that marked theirs SMLE.

When introduced in 1902 or thereabouts, the British army brass felt it was an awkward rifle 'too short to be accurate' and it would never succeed. Well, history sure proved them wrong.

SMLE's are the prettiest rifles ever made (says me). Here's one with volley sights made by Birmingham Small Arms in 1908 and an Australian Lithgow made in 1915.

Pshaaw....give me a LongBranch no4mk1*T any day of the week. Absolutely gorgeous.

Can't help with a Long Branch T but I agree No.4 T's are very nice (almost ALMOST as nice as SMLE's...with mag cutoffs...and volley sights...and a 1907 Pattern sword on the front...oh stop me I'm getting excited).

How about a 1944 Shirley instead?

I agree with Bruce et al: SMLE does indeed stand for 'Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield'.

I seem to remember that 'magazine' denotes fed from not only a magazine, but one that is detachable.

Lee is named for James Paris Lee, the designer of this particular bolt action, and Enfield after the Royal Small Arms Factory staff for improvements to Lee's design to make it what it is: a solid, fast, rear-locking, bolt action.

I've had both a No4 Mk1* T and a No.1 Mk3* HT with the Patt 1918 'scope, and thought the latter was a far far nicer rifle to shoot.

Never was able to procure a No.3 Mk.1 (T), but shot with one a couple of times: another nice rifle, but the SMLE was my favourite of the scoped .303 rifles.

However, the nicest .303 I ever owned and fired was a 1915 Enfield manufactured No.1 Mk3*. It had a walnut stock that was much slimmer with much more 'shape' than the Australian coachwood-stocked rifles I had.

My 'alfpenny's wurf...

Mike

Smle
 

From 1914 Small Arms Manual.

Attachment 92904

Queensland Maple on the 1915 Lithgow...very nice and more than a match for British walnut (unless it's tiger stripe walnut of course...check it out on this 1899 Lee Enfield Carbine and tell me it's not the most fetching).

But the best shooter (though one who's looks need to grow on you) has to be a Canadian Model 1910 Ross. Once you get over that whole "the bolt could blow back in your face" thing it's a dream to shoot. Pull the trigger, settle in, aim, adjust and 'plink', right in the bulls eye.

"Queensland Maple on the 1915 Lithgow...very nice and more than a match for British walnut"

I agree Bruce, Qld Maple does look nice, but it doesn't stand up to the strain of use: a very soft wood that seems to gets dings and dents just looking at it.

Mike

The Enfield part of the title SMLE in fact refers to the form of rifling used so as to differentiate these rifles from those built with the former (read obsolete) Metford rifled barrels. Metford rifling was found to be unsatisfactory for use with smokeless propellant. It was adequate for black powder cartridges but eroded rapidly with usage of cordite ammunition.

David

Thank you all, my misconception is truly corrected,
'Ask a question, and you are a fool for a moment, don't ask and you are a fool forever'.
Thank you all again 😃

Enfield System Rifling
 

Dave, you are dead right:

'On 11 Nov 1895, the new rifle was approved as the Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk1, utilizing the new rifling named in the title. The only difference to the Mark 2* Lee-Metford was in the form of the rifling ... '

Mike

Ah, you must mean this one:

Hi Mike
It would appear that you also have a copy of Ian Skennerton's book 'The British Service Lee'. It is a comprehensive source of information on these rifles.

Dave

Of course! No self-respecting military history library would be without one, Dave, and why on earth are you up pounding the keyboard at 02:50 hours??? Can't sleep, mate, or just home from a night on the town :cheers:??

Best regards

Mike

Firepower
 

Whilst Woodend winters are nothing compared to what you have in the northern U.S. states Mike they are miserable enough to warrant keeping the fire going 24 hours a day and even the wonderful redgum will not burn all night.
The computer terminal being in the same room is a bit of a trap.
Cheers
Dave

You were probaly right to take their caption with a grain of salt, although in this case they were in fact correct.

There is a large museum in Qld that I won't name (to save them embarassment) that you need to take their exhibit captions with a 25lb bag of salt.

Some howlers include a .310 Martini Cadet with clearly displayed manufacturing date of 1911 on it, with an interpretive panel next to it explaining that these rifles were taken to the Boer War by Australians because the .310 cartridge had better range than the .303 used by the British. :doh: And then there is the 1911A1 Colt pistol they have in "38mm Calibre". :doh: When I asked a museum volunteer to elaborate on these (and several others!!) interesting points, I was told that there are many interesting facts in military history that are not widely known by the public, and that is why museums such as this one were important. Would I care to leave a donation in the cash box by the door to enable them to continue their important work? My reply: "Would I????" :eek:

There are lots of museums and displays with similar 'problems' (including the AWM), Tony, and I've found a range of attitudes if you try and suggest a review.

The CWM has a woeful display of how an 18pdr shrapnel round works, plus a couple of 'positional' mix ups with display captions, but having written to the director suggesting changes, my letter was answered with a big fat nothing, and the last time I visited, the misleading display remains the same. Oh well.

Mike

(This if probably getting off this thread's topic, of course: maybe it deserves a different thread: 'Display Blunders I have Seen'??)

Say goodbye to your wrist when you pull the trigger on that thing!

Nos smle
 

SMLE wrapped in 1955

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3neXf7jPfss

Enfield Unwrapping
 

That youtube video reminds me of an Egyptian mummy unwrapping that was a common party theme by the wealthy during the Victorian era. I know there are many out there who disagree, but from my perspective, this video is just as thoughtless and shortsighted as there cannot be many NOS SMLEs still in their original wrapping. In their defence, at least the Victorians had little idea of what they were going to find when they unwrapped their bundle; whereas in this case the label was pretty clear.

1) In a perfect world a collector would buy two of those Irish contract rifles, one to unwrap and one to keep mummified.

2) I expect a purist might say that, while a No.4 is shorter than a Long Lee, it isn't technically a 'Short, Magazine, Lee Enfield.

3) All those Victorians who morbidly meddled with mummies are now cursed along with their descendant's forever.

I agree with you both.

In a perfect world, an example would be left wrapped and conserved in a publicly-funded museum collection as an example. Unfortunately, even then, there are no guarantees. I am aware of an M3A1 SMG 'grease gun' still in its original WW2 sealed box that was cut open to check the serial number which was already visible on the label.

Mike

Unwrapping
 

Perhaps what is needed is a publically funded museum run by purists!

Interesting curve to this thread.

One thing I would love to find is packing instructions for a variety of wireless kit, like 19-Set Spare Parts Boxes, any of the 52-Set Boxes and Cases, the 1/4-ton M100 Support Trailer for the .50 Browning on the M38CDN.

Always lots of Contents Lists to be found, but little or nothing on how to actually pack the items.


David

And to further curve this into a want list....has anyone even seen a stowage diagram for a Chev HUW wireless van? Particularly because there are about a dozen bins with specific sizes and securing straps that, try as I might, don't match either 11 set or 19 set equipment or accessories. So what the heck were they designed for?

Ed, while I concur with your sentiments, I believe the guy who paid $6000.00 has the right to do what ever he wishes with it. I watched the video and this rifle is like the woman that appeals more when she still holds her secrets. This rifle has bared its all and has less appeal for me now, than it did when it was wrapped. (not that I am making any claims of knowledge about the fairer sex)

Rifle Unwrapping
 

I agree, his rifle, he can do what he wants with it. I will also got a step further and state that not only was the unwrapping foolhardy and short-sighted but he posted it to Youtube simply as a means to gain 'likes' and acceptance.

Another
 

Another unwrapping . This guy seems to explain more of the details and he makes a trip to the shooting range :no4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q_oWMgfrdc

You just gave poor Ed a panic attack....