Michael.
Unfortunately, the documents I received from the EPR focused on design more so than production. The Ross Mk III design is well documented, the Canadian SMLE version is only mentioned. Perhaps a clone of the British SMLE design so no point in duplication of design references.
Hard to get a meaningful timeframe reference as well as any idea of production volumes. Going into WW2, it would stand to reason Canada still had a quantity of Ross rifles in storage somewhere, along with a large supply of SMLE equipment. Not sure when Long Branch production of the No.4 geared up, but it would seems possible when the decision was made to build Dischargers, the Ross would be the first consideration for conversion. If production demand exceeded the available supply of Ross Rifles, then SMLE's would likely have been called into play next.
Be interesting to find out if the Discharger was an active item throughout the war or perhaps went the way of the Boys Rifle at some point before the end of the war. From what I recall of Canadian vehicle production, only the Universal Carriers, Otter and Fox had provision for a Discharger, but there are a lot of photos out there, from all points in time during the war, where these particular vehicles have no Discharger installed at all. I think the Fox was even built for provision of two, one above the other.
The other bit of grey to the Discharger picture is the possibility two versions existed from another perspective: those built with residual wood furniture on the actions and those with all wood removed. It is possible wood furniture may only have been used on those Dischargers exposed to the elements. Metal only actions might have been intended for use in enclosed vehicles such as the Otter and Fox. Another unknown is if the mounting hardware was standard for all vehicles. The UC design suggests the discharger was a complete piece when fitted, but the Otter and Fox suggest the discharger had to be disassembled to be mounted.
David
|