Smle

[Tim Lovelock]

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

[rob love]

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.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Tim Lovelock

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

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.

[rob love]

Originally Posted by Bruce Parker

SMLE's are the prettiest rifles ever made (says me).

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

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by rob love

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?

[Mike Cecil]

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

[Ed Storey]

From 1914 Small Arms Manual.

SMLE Mk III - diagram - Plate 1 copy.jpg

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

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

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.

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Tim Lovelock

I was at the Imperial War Museum in London recently, unfortunately I didn't get to ask a curator this question about their exhibit.

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. And then there is the 1911A1 Colt pistol they have in "38mm Calibre". 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????"

[Mike Cecil]

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'??)

[Matt Austin]

Originally Posted by Tony Smith

...And then there is the 1911A1 Colt pistol they have in "38mm Calibre"...

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

[Mike Kelly]

SMLE wrapped in 1955

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

[Ed Storey]

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.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

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.