Peddled Scheme SMLE markings?

[HereToRead]

Hey, everyone. I’ve lurked here for a while, this board has been a wealth of information since I got into milsurp collecting, and finally decided to become a contributing member. Largely because I’m at a point now where I think I have some knowledge to contribute and also to support the discussions that have made this journey easier and more informative. I had some questions regarding the markings on my new rifle, a 1918 Peddled Scheme SMLE, and was hoping some of the experts could enlighten me.

Some of the markings are too faded to make out but I see a lot of EFD, which I understand to be Enfield marks, and I have the Peddled NRF on the left side of the action body with a I stamped over it, the same U appearing on the bolt head. There’s what appear to be some faded proofing stamps throughout but they are hard to make out.

The one thing that has me curious is my cocking piece. It’s my understanding that by 1918, production had swapped to the more squared off version with grasping grooves. My rifle has an earlier tear drop style and on the bottom left hand side of it, there’s a small Z just at the front of the piece. Would I be correct in assuming that this isn’t the original part given the rifle’s manufacturing date? And I know that Z is generally bad news when it comes to Enfields but this is one is very small and only appears in this one spot on the cocking piece knob. It’s also faded at the top so I guess it could maybe be a 2. The right side of the cocking piece has what appears to be a broad arrow and an H.

I’d love to upload some pictures but haven’t been able to take any good ones yet. I’m hoping to have a nice photo shoot in the near future to get some decent ones of the markings. I was just hoping that there was enough description here to answer some of my questions in the meantime. And I duly apologize for the wall of text lol

Thanks for any insight and I look forward to participating here with all of you fine and knowledgeable folks in the future

[HereToRead]

I was able to take some pictures and upload them to the Enfield Rifles forum, they’re system allowed me to do it straight from my phone, if anyone had the time and inclination to take a look by following the link.
SMLE Peddle Scheme Markings - Enfield-Rifles.com

Thanks again if anyone can shine some light on the rifle’s history.

[Enfield-Stuff]

Would I be correct in assuming that this isn’t the original part given the rifle’s manufacturing date?

Welcome to the forum.

First off, a note: "scheme" in 1910 British English is akin to what we'd call a "business plan" or "project". In modern American English "scheme" is usually unsavory or "sketchy" or not-quite-upright. The "Peddled Scheme" was simply a plan to rely on a mixture of government and "trade" contractors to supply components which would then be assembled info a complete rifle. The Ministry of Munitions ("MoM") had already had some success with this concept in the "Dilution Scheme", where three women could be hired to replace two men (thereby freeing up manpower for the Front); the scheme involved the gov't buying machinery for firms that had never done any type of "war work" and then training women - soon to be called "Munitionettes" - to make the parts.

The MoM set up a component pool, so if a manufacturer had excess production of barrels, for example, another manufacturer could draw from the pool, rather than rely only on in-house and slow down production.

To cut to the chase: Yes, although EFD and BSA may have moved on to producing the simpler cocking piece on X date, there was probably a sizeable inventory of perfectly good old style cocking pieces available. The goal was to get a functional rifle out the door. Peddled Scheme assembly contractors (SSA and NRF) would have drawn down existing stocks (made by others) before spending time and money to create new parts.

[HereToRead]

Thanks for the welcome and the input, that makes a lot of sense. And I also appreciate the early 20th century English lesson. I did find myself thinking that “scheme” seemed a little informal for a government war program so your explanation definitely cleared that up.

The rifle definitely looks to be in good shape with no visible rust and a good bore. Wood is a little dinged up but the old girl is over 100. Only thing I found that made me wonder was the Z on the cocking piece, visible in the photos I linked, but given its size and only appearing there I wonder if it’s unrelated as it’s also unaccompanied by the expected “F”, “BER” or “BLR”. and I was lead to believe rejection stamps would be on main components. Wonder if it’s an old BSA or Ishapore part, I know they used Z serial prefixes on occasion. It’s amazing the things you can learn from faded markings plastered on such an old piece of equipment.

Thanks again for your answers. I learned something new today and greatly appreciate it.

[Enfield-Stuff]

Thank you for your kind words.

If you're interested in government/national markings, I have a fairly detailed listing on my website:

https://enfield-stuff.com/Pages/2-co...arks_govt.html

And God help you if you get interested in oilers.

https://enfield-stuff.com/Pages/3-oilers.html

[Alan de Enfield]

The reason for all the Enfield markings is that by 1916 SSA were no longer assembling rifles - all componats went to Enfield where they were assembled from the 'components pool' this is why, what we may think of a Bitsa, (BSA, LSA, SSA, & Enfirld parts), could easily be 100% correct 'as it left the factory,

Info from Member MKVII with additions by myself :

Peddle Scheme.

Standard Small Arms was formed by Mr S J Waring (later Lord Waring, 1860-1940) of the Waring & Gillow concern ,together with a Mr Peterson, who was a man of standing in the Birmingham gun trade. They believed that the skills of the Birmingham gun trade were being neglected and could be more fully utilised in the war effort than they were. They planned to make all of the action and the nosecap, less magazines, screws and pins, and organise eight small firms and a number of individuals in the trade (probably outworkers, of whom a great many worked in the trade at that time). The barrels were to be subcontracted to Westley Richards and the wood to be cut by Waring & Gillow and Rudders & Payne (both these firms eventually dropped out). They contracted to supply rifles at 75/- each, which was the same price that BSA was paid. After a year or so it became apparent that the factory would never produce complete arms and it was instructed to produce four items; body with charger guide, bolt, bolt head and trigger guard. The company was to produce 1500 sets of components a week, rising to 4,000 when new machinery was installed. Other firms were contracted to produce less specialist items, the sets of components being delivered to Enfield for assembly in the bayonet shop, production of which was shifted to Wilkinsons and Sanderson Brothers & Newbold.
The downside of this scheme was that it only allowed for the exact number of components needed. Thus assembly of rifles was held up for want of quite minor items which inexperienced firms were struggling to produce. The scheme was revised in 1916 and became known as the Rifle Components Pool, taking every component which the 'Big Three' could make in excess of their complete rifle production as well as all that Standard Small Arms could turn out, and those produced by the 'peddled scheme' firms. Ordnance could also draw on the pool for repair parts. A considerable stock of components was built up so that any of the Big Three could draw on it if short of some item, and this was done continuously by LSA, and occasionally by BSA, and by Enfield (the pool being on the spot). Standard Small Arms did not attain an output of 2,000 bodies a week until April 1917 and two years after the start of work only 5-6,000 had been produced. By this time SSA were in financial difficulties and a government loan had to be made to keep them going. On June 1st 1918 the factory became National Rifle Factory No.1 with Mr Peterson as superintendent and instructed to prepare for manufacture of components of the Farquhar-Hill automatic rifle, although NRF-marked SMLE bodies were made after this. SSA seem to have turned out 2,000-4,000 bodies a week, depending on the Ministry of Munitions' requirements at the time.

From the records of the ‘National’ factories :

The National Factory Scheme

In August 1914 the state-owned ordnance factories were providing the Army with about a third of its weapons and at this time there were only sixteen firms tendering for War Office munitions contracts:
WG Armstrong Whitworth & Co. Ltd.
Harper Sons & Bean Ltd.
William Beardmore & Company
Head Wrightson & Co.
Cammell Laird & Company
Kings Norton Metal Co.
Coventry Ordnance Works
The Projectile Co. (1902) Ltd.
Dick Kerr & Company
Rees Roturbo Manufacturing Co.
The Electric & Ordnance Accessories Co.
Vickers Ltd.
T Firth & Sons
J & P Hill
Hadfields Ltd.
Watson Laidlaw & Co.

The first few months of the Ministry’s existence saw the establishment of an imposing group of national factories so that by the end of December 1915, there were 73 new sites. The new factories would be Government property and the armament firms were responsible for the design, construction and to provide managers to run them as agents for the Ministry. These were in addition to the Royal Factories conceded from the War Office at Enfield Lock, Farnborough, Waltham Abbey and Woolwich. By the end of the war, this array of national factories had increased, both in number and in the variety of the products. Over 218 new or adapted factories .(so, for example as the Standard Small Arms factory failed to achieve its targets it was ‘taken over’ by the Government with the old SSA managing it) were in operation and covered not only every kind of munitions, from cannon and aeroplanes to small-arms ammunition, but also centres for the production of ball-bearings and concrete slabs.


Birmingham NRF No.1 (Lench Street)

Management: Standard Small Arms Company Ltd. Products: Farquahar-Hill automatic rifle. Notes: abandoned in October 1918 before production started.

Birmingham NRF No. 2 (Garrrison Lane)

Management: Standard Small Arms Company Ltd. Products: Fraquahaer-Hill automatic rifle. Notes: abandoned in October 1918 before production started.

[HereToRead]

Thanks, Alan, and everyone else who’s contributed. I’m learning a lot about the old war horse and its unusual history from you folks.

I guess the only question I’d have left is how concerned should I be about the lonely Z on the cocking piece? I know the significance of what that marking could mean but also know it’s usually accompanied by a following letter or series of letters to denote what needs to be done and, on my example, is very small and only appears in that one spot by itself. I’d like this rifle to be a shooter, like the others in my collection, and just want to be thorough in making sure it’s good to go after a nice cleaning and check over. The marking can be seen in the pictures I linked to from another board, it was easier for me to do it there since I could upload straight from the library on my phone and I have no experience with photo storage sites.

You folks have been fantastic in helping fill in the gaps in my knowledge so far and I look forward to hopefully paying it forward in the future.