View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Articles
Note: After you click on images to ENLARGE them, you may find they automatically size smaller in your browser's window making them hard to read. The auto sizing is your browser's way of keeping images entirely within the screen size you have set. If this happens, you will see a small box in the bottom right hand corner of the pic with four arrows point outwards. Click this box and the pic will EXPAND and open up to its normal size, so you should now be able to read any text and make out small details.
"No. 4 Mk I (T), ex-Trials Rifle - Cut-off - Off or On?"
By Terry Hawker
Historical Background
Still struggling with the concept of letting the "Other Ranks" have the option of firing a second shot at their own discretion and thus "wasting" ammunition, cut-offs were introduced by the War Department upon the demise of the Martini-Henry, then retained in one form or another for over half a century.
A MLM Mk II Skeleton Action illustrates how the cut-off was initially configured to employ the rifle as a single loader until the situation required the use of the magazine held in reserve.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
This cross-section of arms, all originally manufactured with cut-offs during this period, illustrates models with different types of cut-offs and those that had their cut-offs officially removed. From top to bottom they are:
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
1. 1890? MLM Mk II, Skeleton Action, with standard MLM-MLE cut-off, representing all the Long Lee rifles and carbines of the era.
2. 1904 Sparkbrooke, Sht L.E. Mk I***, with standard SMLE cut-off used through the No. 1 Mk III.
3. 1905 L.S.A. Co Ld, Sht L.E. Mk I***, Grenade Firing, cut-off removed.
4. 1915 Enfield, Sht L.E. Mk III, With Aperture Sights, (or, No. 1 Mk V Trials Patt.), with No. 1 Mk V cut-off.
5. 1924 Enfield, No. 1 MK V, with standard Mk V cut-off.
6. 1924 Enfield, No. 1 Mk VI, re-furbished and issued as a No. 4 Mk I, cut-off removed.
7. 1931 Enfield, No. 4 Mk I (T) ex-Trials, with stamped cut-off.
Also noted in the way of historical background is the fact that previously, most, if not all, No. 1 Mk III sniping rifle equipments went into service with their cut-offs still in place. (Refer to photos on page 17 of Clive Law's "Without Warning", page 125 of Martin Pegler's "Out of Nowhere", and pages 225 to 233 of Ian Skennerton's "British Sniper".)
Being the annoyingly anal, collector-type that I am, inconsequential little details often catch my eye, making me wonder about such things. This was again the case when reading Ian Skennerton's, "The BRITISH SNIPER, British and Commonwealth Sniping & Equipments, 1915 - 1983", (an excellent book that anyone with the slightest interest in British sniper rifles should have in their reference library), and I came to the Illustrated Technical Details section. See Notation #1 under "Collectors Comments and Feedback" below for additional information.
Ian states on page 242, in discussing the No. 4 (T) ex-Trials rifle, "There is provision for a magazine cut-off, which was removed.", yet the rifle he chooses to illustrate this model, on this and the following page, quite obviously still has the cut-off! Thought this a bit odd, especially later, when I saw another collector's rifle that still had the cut-off, and, even more so after I acquired mine, (A 2200), that appears 100% original with its plethora of Enfield inspection stamps, yet still has a stamped cut-off intact.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Thus perplexed, I began the exercise of combing through my reference library to see if I could find any other photos of ex-Trials sniper rifles, and as I did, a pattern emerged.
In "British Sniper", apart from the previously mentioned rifle on pages 242-243, on page 114 there is a photo comparing three telescopes mounted on rifles, one of which is a different ex-Trials, (or at least it has a different telescope mounted on it), given away by the stamped cut-off visible in the bottom rifle. (This same photo also appears in Skennerton's, "The British Service Lee".) On page 100 there is a photo of the rear, left side of the action of an ex- Trials sniper, but examination of the dings and dents in the wrist of the stock shows it to be the same rifle as on page 242-243, thus still having the cut-off. (This photo also shows up on page 209 of Skennerton's, "The Lee Enfield Story", and again on page 229 of Skennerton's, "The Lee Enfield". Twice it appears as an un-credited photo, then credited to a collector, and, lastly, credited to a different collector, tracking part of the journey of this particular rifle in collector circles.)
On page 211 of LES there is also a different photo comparing three mounted telescopes, but this time the ex-Trials rifle with the cut-off showing is the same rifle as shown in "British Sniper". This photo appears again on page 231 of TLE, but, by now Ian seems to be wavering just a bit, as he states in the caption, "Also note that the 1933 Trials Rifle is fitted with a magazine cut-off at top; this was most likely removed in the Mk I (T) upgrade."
It would appear that in almost every photo of an ex-Trials sniper in these four books of Ian's, the rifle has a cut-off. Unfortunately, it also appears, in almost every case, to be the same rifle, but, on page 112 of "British Sniper", there is a rather famous photo of a sniper Corporal in Italy, taking aim over a pile of rubble. The photo shows the rifle to be a No.4 (T), but is too dark for much detail to be made out.
In Martin Pegler's excellent, "OUT OF NOWHERE, A History of the Military Sniper", this same photo, from the author's collection, appears on page 229 in all its original, high resolution glory. The rifle is now plainly seen to be a No. 4 Mk I (T) ex-Trials. Looking closely, judging by the fact that the opening in the action body for the cut-off stops at the same spot where the grasping portion of the cut-off would cover this slit, to these old tired eyes it appears that this rifle too, still has the cut-off. (Refer to second photo below to see how prominent the opening in the receiver is on a rifle which has had the cut-off removed.)
Further information comes in the 2002, issue No. 22, of Ian's "Arms and Militaria Collector" magazine, where,in Roger Payne's very informative article, "For tea or Not for tea?", there is a photo of another No. 4 Mk I (T) ex-Trials rifle and it too, has the cut-off.
The most important of all the photos involved in this discussion, is in Major John Plaster's excellent, "History of Sniping and Sharpshooting", a fascinating trip through time, as the title suggests, and a quite indispensable reference for those of us who love both history and the firearms that made it. On page 378, of this very educational book, is the picture worth the proverbial thousand words. Although Major Plaster inadvertently includes, "SMLE", in his description of a No. 4 Mk I (T) in the caption, the photo itself tells the tale. It shows a soldier in the field, wearing battle dress, wiping down a No. 4 (T) with all the ex-Trials characteristics...waisted fore-sight block, butt marking disc, button cocking piece, (oddly enough, cocked!), no front trigger guard swivel, but, most telling of all, the cut-off is plainly still present and casting a lovely shadow on the fore-end!!! (Similar to this...)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
(Note: Careful examination of Major Plaster's photo and Mr. Pegler's, seems to reveal men with prominent dark eyebrows, long straight noses and extraordinarily long, narrow fingers...In other words, it is the same soldier in both photographs!)
This would seem to prove that at least one No. 4 Mk I (T) ex-Trials rifle was issued without the removal of the cut-off. Chances are, it wasn't the only one.
As it would appear that Ian got great mileage out of one rifle, which tends to dilute the photographic evidence prior to the clincher of the issued-intact, ex-Trials (T) in Major Plaster's book, I thought, perhaps before possibly putting my foot in my mouth, I would see if I could get any responses from other collectors. As I was also curious about what type of cut-off was original to these rifles, I asked fellow collectors on the Lee-Enfield forums, Gunboards and CSP, if their apparently original otherwise, ex-Trials No. 4 Mk I sniper, still had the correct, STAMPED, (a bit of an assumption at that point, I must admit), cut-off in place, or had it been removed?
Once before, I had asked a cut-off question on the forums because my 1930, No. 1 Mk VI, (366A), had been re-furbished as a No. 4, losing its cut-off in the process.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
I wondered if it originally had a stamped type, as in my ex-Trials (T), or if perhaps it was the cast type, without the "spotting" hole, as in the No. 1 Mk V's. There weren't too many responses, but, they seemed at the time to lean towards a stamped cut-off being the correct one.
(Note: Collectors with much more knowledge than I, have referred to cut-offs that aren't stamped, as both "forged" and "milled", while Ian Skennerton uses the term, "cast". As I don't know which is correct, [and to save a bit on typing], for now, I will use Ian's term, "cast".)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
This time, I'm happy to say, many thoughtful collectors shared the information provided by the rifles in their collections and between February 26, 2009, and March 15, 2009, the following was reported:
No. 4 Mk I (T) - ex-Trials Rifle: Stamped Cut-Off ... 17. Cast Cut-Off ... 7. No Cut-Off ... 5.
Also, although I hadn't specifically asked about these models, the following bonus information was submitted:
No. 4 Mk I Trials Rifle: Stamped Cut-Off ... 4. Cast Cut-Off ... 0. No Cut-Off ... 0.
No. 1 Mk VI: Stamped Cut-Off ... 1. Cast Cut-Off ... 2. (1 Mk III type with "spotting" hole, other, type unknown). No Cut-Off ... 3.
From these figures alone, it would appear that the cut-off was NOT normally removed in the No. 4 Mk I (T) upgrade, but a closer examination of the rifles in this little survey begins to point to another interesting conclusion.
Of the 7 No. 4 Mk I (T) ex-Trials Rifles reported with cast cut-offs; 1 has a Mk V cut-off, (no "spotting" hole), in a rifle that Warren Wheatfield and Herb Woodend thought to be very early production, thus possibly original ... 1 is an acknowledged fake, as when the present owner first saw it, it had no cut-off, but when he purchased it, a Mk III type had since been installed ... 4 more also have the Mk III type cut-off, (with the "spotting" hole),
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
which is at least 3 rifle models and 2 cut-off types older, and thus probable replacements ... and the last, an ex-Trials (T), with a cast cut-off, that is now an L 42, reported by Peter Laidler. I wouldn't begin to try to explain how that happened, but suspect it is not original to the receiver either. Of these 7 rifles, it is quite possible that the only cast cut-off that might be original to the rifle is the first one mentioned.
Of the 5 ex-Trials (T)'s without cut-offs; 2 are ex- India service re-builds, and 1 is another L42 conversion, so it is not at all surprising that cut-offs are absent on them, leaving only 2 rifles with more questionably absent cut-offs. Who can say what the effect of being told since 1984, that cut-offs were removed, in "The British Sniper" and other articles after, has had on some collectors? (Not to mention the possible removal of an annoying appendage by hunters when these rifles were first imported, dirt cheap, in the fifties.)
Of the 6 No. 1 Mk VI's reported, with 1 stamped, 2 cast and 3 without cut-offs, the sample is too small to support much in the way of a conclusion, but, as one of the cast cut-offs is a Mk III type with "spotting" hole, I suspect that it is a replacement. Probably the most surprising of the bunch is the one that still has a stamped cut-off, because, as Skennerton says on page 475 of TLE, "Most of the Mark VI rifles were refurbished at Enfield early in World War 2 as No. 4 rifles, due to the acute shortages at the time.", in the course of which the cut-offs were removed.
(Note: Another model of rifle that definitely had the cut-off removed in service was the early grenade firing conversion. The wire wrap that prevents disassembly also prevents debate.)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
As to what cut-off was original to a Mk VI, on page 192 of TLE, Ian gives us a clue:
"Even in the late 1920's, the Lee-Enfield magazine cut-off was undergoing improvement. Enfield Design Department drawings DD(E) 936 show an experimental cut-off made from pressed sheet steel instead of the usual cast type, and the strengthened section at the pivot screw axis hole has the top piece brazed or welded on. The first drawing is dated 2nd May 1928 with a revision on 2nd November 1928. This improved cut-off is very similar to that used on the No. 1 Mk VI rifle soon afterwards."
Conclusions:
"Never say never with Enfields", to quote an old curmudgeon most of us Lee-Enfield collectors are familiar with, and, as I am the first to admit, there are no absolutes when it comes to these rifles. (As proven by this odd-ball.)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
With those qualifiers, here are my thoughts.
Ian's publishing of dated drawing numbers of a new pressed sheet steel, (or stamped) cut-off, being very similar to that used on the No. 1 Mk VI soon afterwards, seems to be pretty good evidence that the Mk VI, more likely than not, originally was fitted with a stamped cut-off. For confirmation though, I would like to know what cut-offs are in the Mk VI's in the old Pattern Room Collection, and in any existing rifles that didn't go through refurbishing, (good luck!).
It would appear that this stamped cut-off was carried through to the No 4 Mk I Trials Rifles, what with the high proportion in our sample surviving intact.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
With 17 ex-Trials (T)'s with stamped cut-offs, and the added bonus of all 4 regular model No. 4 Mk I Trials Rifles reported still wearing their stamped cut-offs, I think the evidence supports stamped cut-offs being original on these rifles as well. Further buttressing this belief is the fact that Paul Breakey reports a pre-production specimen, unmarked, except for the butt disc, and even this early a rifle has a stamped cut-off.
Why the few ex-Trials (T)'s in this sample with cast cut-offs of one type or the other are probably not original to their rifles, I have dealt with earlier, but I think it is safe to say that a Mk III type cut-off is a replacement, and a Mk V type, in most cases, appears to be also. The Mk V cut-off isn't common,
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
but with a rifle production figure of 20,000-odd rifles, it does turn up from time to time, to be found by those who feel it makes their rifle "correct". This is unlike the extremely rare, stamped cut-off, most of which, if this sample is any indication, seem to still reside comfortably in their original rifles.
(Note: It appears that this little survey is quite timely, because it brought to light, as so often happens when an item reaches a certain degree of rarity, that there are plans afoot to reproduce this stamped cut-off. This will probably muddy the waters of originality in the future, and, although this will allow those collectors so inclined, to "complete" their rifles, I would think a new-made, stamped cut-off would be relatively easy to tell from an original. The obvious problem being, so few collectors have access to an original. Perhaps this will help.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
In the depression stamped into the bottom of the cut-off are the following stamps; the broad arrow, the intertwined "ED" Enfield logo and the number, "29". As this isn't a typical Enfield inspector's stamp with crown, "E" and inspector's number, perhaps this is simply the maker's mark and date of production, especially considering Mr. Skennerton's reference to the new cut-off being designed in the late 20's.
Now to the major thrust of this exercise, hopefully determining whether or not, in the conversion of No. 4 Mk I Trials Rifles to No. 4 Mk I (T)'s, the cut-off was removed.
Photographic evidence:
In Ian's own volumes, photos show that most, if not all, photos of this model, are those of a rifle still fitted with a cut-off. The rifle Dr. Roger Payne chooses to represent this model, in his previously mentioned article, still has the cut-off. In Martin Pegler's book, the sniper in Italy appears to be firing a rifle with cut-off intact, and the rifle being cleaned by a soldier in the field, in the photo in Major Plaster's book, also still has the cut-off fitted.
(Note: In an observation that proves nothing, looking through my available references, I couldn't find a single photo of an ex-Trials (T) without a cut-off. Yes, it would be hard to spot, but waisted foresight protector, button cocking-piece and butt marking-disc would be good clues, and, as yet, I haven't found one.)
Survey results:
With 17 stamped cut-offs, 7 cast cut-offs, and only 5 rifles with no cut-offs reported, the conclusion is pretty obvious. Earlier I explained why I feel at least three of the five missing cut-offs were removed, and why I think the 7 cast cut-offs are probably replacements, but, even if I am wrong, in a worse case scenario, where the 7 cast cut-offs are post-service replacements for cut-offs possibly removed upon conversion, and the 5 with no cut-offs present are actually as originally issued, (pretty big "ifs", I think), we still would have a hefty, 17 to 12, ratio of rifles with their original cut-offs, to those that were removed.
Something else to consider is the official nomenclature and announcement of the No. 4 Mk I (T) in the List Of Changes, on the 12th of February, 1942, (last published by Ian, on page 227 of "The Lee-Enfield"). Apart from the usual, accurate description of the item being introduced, it contains this: "Note: a number of rifles of early manufacture are not suitable for use with the standard telescope and fittings as the surface on the left hand side of the body has not been machined for that purpose." and also, at the end, "2. Consequent upon the foregoing, the nomenclature of the above-mentioned No. 4 rifles has been amended to read as now shown."
This recognizes the No. 1 Mk VI as being unsuitable for conversion,
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
and also, that this sniping rifle is a different model of rifle from the regular issue No 4, and yet, unlike most other L. O. C. conversion announcements that go into great detail to list all the changes made in the process of the conversion, (hence the name!), there is no mention of the removal of the magazine cut-off! Could this perhaps be due to the fact that it wasn't done?
Perhaps it seems a bit strange to use information in Ian's well-researched publications to try disprove something he wrote previously, but in all fairness to Ian, removal of cut-offs on conversion to sniping rifles does seem like a logical procedure, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some snipers, or their unit armorers, did indeed do just that. Unfortunately, so far, I can't find much evidence for it. When Ian first stated in print that the cut-offs were removed, access to individual specimens was much more restricted than it is now, with the Inter-net giving collectors the luxury of comparing their treasures. As mentioned before, Ian himself may have had his doubts, questioning his previous statement, then amending it a bit to, "...most likely removed", in his latest tome, "The Lee-Enfield".
So here I go, out on a limb, by stating that both the photographic evidence and the survey results, with assists pulled from the texts, point to the conclusion that the original cut-offs in No. 4 Mk I (T) ex-Trials Rifles were stamped, and, more importantly to this discussion, usually NOT removed upon conversion.
If I just put my foot in my mouth, so be it, but, thanks to Major John Plaster, we now have proof that at least one of these rifles went to war with the cut-off still present.
Note: Recently, ( Sept. '09), even more evidence has turned up to prove this certainly wasn't the only No. 4 Mk. I (T) ex- Trials Rifle to be issued with the cut-off intact. Many thanks to Nigel Greenaway, a frequent contributor to the Milsurps Knowledge Library, for providing the following photos of Indian troops using these rifles. The cut-off is quite plainly evident."
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
"Never say never!"
Thanks to all the collectors that provided information on their rifles for the survey and especially to Paul Breakey and Warren Wheatfield whose contributions were invaluable.
Bibliography:
Source..."The BRITISH SERVICE LEE" by Ian Skennerton, 1982.
Source..."The BRITISH SNIPER, British & Commonwealth Sniping & Equipments, 1915-1983" by Ian Skennerton, 1984.
Source..."The Lee-Enfield Story" by Ian Skennerton, 1993.
Source..."The LEE-ENFIELD" by Ian Skennerton, 2007.
Source..."For tea or Not for tea?" by Dr. Roger Payne, in the 2002, issue No. 22, of Ian Skennerton's "Arms and Militaria Collector" magazine.
Source..."Without Warning" by Clive Law, 2004.
Source..."OUT OF NOWHERE, A History of the Military Sniper" by Martin Pegler, 2004.
Source..."THE HISTORY OF SNIPING AND SHARPSHOOTING" by Major John Plaster, 2008.
Source...Informal survey of No. 4 Mk I (T) ex-Trials owners, done on the Gunboards and C.S.P. Lee-Enfield forums, with responses from February 26, 2009, to March 15, 2009.
Collector's Comments and Feedback:
1. The Lee Enfield by Ian Skennerton (2007) - ISBN: 9780949749826 is an excellent general reference book on the evolution of Lee-Enfield rifles, however, it doesn't go into great detail on their use as sniper rifles. Ian Skennerton published an earlier 266 page work in 1983 called The British Sniper (British & Commonwealth Sniping & Equipments 1915-1983) - ISBN 0 949749 03 6. For anyone wanting a lot more detail research with pictures covering the evolution of sniping, this is an excellent supplement to his later work. It is out of print, so I'd suggest you use a "Google" search on the title to see if you can find a copy from one of the rare used book sources on the Internet. I found my copy on eBay. ....... (Feedback by "Badger")
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Note: The opinions expressed herein or statements made in this article are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Military Surplus Collectors Forums, or the ownership and moderation group of this site. MILSURPS.COM accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein. Also, please note that neither the author nor MILSURPS.COM recommends that any member of these forums, or a reader of this article, try this type of experimentation without the proper knowledge, equipment and training.
Countries
Categories
Recent Article Comments
