RFI NoI Mk3 in grease.

[RobD]

Peter, I accept all you say. And I'm sure the intentions of the designers are good. I understand the logic of wire wrapping, having been brought up in a home where my dad added soda to his whisky from a wire-wrapped soda siphon.

I am slightly skeptical about the effectiveness. Does it really protect the soldier? Does anyone have before and after pictures?
Looking at photos, if one goes off at the muzzle, the blast is about 40 inches from the soldier's face, so it's not just below the waist that would need a wipe down.
And also, looking at the article here

Milsurps Knowledge Library - WW1 Enfield Wire Wrapped Grenade Rifles and Dischargers

it strikes me that people don't hold the forestock where the wire is.

[Peter Laidler]

The crunchie in photo 3 really needs a bollock recoil protector surely, while the rest are correct. All I can do is to tell you that it works. As for photos, I did show some rifles that had come in for evaluation after training accidents with a view to re-writing the user instructions. Can anyone highlight the photos for Rob?

[browningautorifle]

The crunchie in photo 3 really needs a bollock recoil protector

He's a Highland soldier...they don't need no stinkin' protection...

[Ridolpho]

OK, now I'm getting confused (not unusual). In the big Skennerton book he mentions that the application of the 2.5 inch cup to the No. 4 rifle failed because the full recoil loading was put on the barrel whereas with the No. 1 rifle part of the loading was taken up by the nosecap/ forend. Looking at my own wire-wrap Ishapore, I can adjust the inner stub in the cup base such that at firing both barrel and forend will take up recoil. As Peter L. says, it it (the cup) is to be adjusted for the individual rifle which will have slight variance in barrel protrusion beyond the nosecap. If it was intended that all recoil was to be taken by the barrel that adjustable stub seems pointless. The way the Indians modified their grenade launcher rifles (extra heavy bolt in place of "Ishapore screw", apparently, in some cases, rubber pads behind forend, and the wire or sheet metal wrap) it would appear they expected the forend to take a heavy beating from grenade launching. The cross bolt and wire wrap could certainly protect against splintering of the forend. What am I missing?

Ridolpho

[Peter Laidler]

The answer is best given by asking another technical question. I appreciate why Ians previous NON technical comment is taken as the gospel but sometimes you have to......... Anyway. Now for the question. If you were firing a grenade from your EY No1 rifle, would you rather
a) have the full load of recoil taken directly down/along the strongest part of the rifle, to the body and into the butt. In addition, knowing that there was a gas seal - in the form of the adjustable cup nozzle - between the cup and said barrel or:
b) that the cup discharger base was held onto the nose cap where it might not even be in contact with barrel, so that the full load of the recoil was transmitted NOT along the strong steel tubular barrel but down the wooden fore-end?

Honest answer please!

The so called Ishapore screw (it's nothing of the sort and in any case, is a total red herring in this context) isn't even in the same place as the reinforcing bolt fitted to EY rifles. The cup is pulled firmly against the barrel by the lockable nozzle in the base to form a seal but is pulled backwards by the claws hooked into the nose cap

[Ridolpho]

That makes sense to me, Peter. Particularly the part about the gas seal. However, the barrel only sticks out so-far (about 0.035inch on mine). Is the barrel stiff enough to stop the cup base assembly from routinely contacting the nosecap and forend on firing and taking some of the stress?

Ridolpho

[Peter Laidler]

In short, it's the slight variation in barrel protrusion that ensures that the nozzle is adjustable. So that it CAN be adjusted to suit the rifle that the cup is attached to. I can only assume that the barrel is firm enough to ensure that the recoil loading is taken on it and not the fore-end. Otherwise, it'd be self defeating and I am sure that the fore-ends would not be capable of absorbing the pounding meted out by more than a few grenade firings

[Buccaneer]

Now that the beast is clean I thought there might be some interest in what was hiding under all the crud. I have no idea if what I see is "standard " to this type of wire wound rifle or in fact to the RFI SMLE in general as I have nothing to compare it with.
There is a strap accross the rear of the forend similar to the No4 MkI instead of the brass rod that is common to "Enfield" SMLE's.
Brass rods have been inserted just in front of the magazine and also on the top wood just in front of the rearsight neither areas show any sign of damage.
A metal strip appears to have been inserted under the left hand side of the rear wire wrap and the right hand side of the front wrap (looking forward down the barrel).
The rifle is "all matching" including the magazine and rearsight both of which have had previous numbers barred out, it carries an "FR" stamp to the left butt socket, could this be the same as our "FTR" mark? There is also a stamp on the butt, a circle with a D over the broad arrow with T & E either side, there appears to be a (W) under the broard arrow but it's very difficult to make out.
This rifle will never win any beauty contests but it is different....