Query over content of MKL post

I have been "touring" various areas of the site since joining the other day. Just starting to get the hang of how everything works (I think). I just read the thread concerning MKL entries and the concerns expressed by a potential valuable contributor on the topic of Arisaka's (of which I know nothing). Taking the advise offered there to start a general thread to discuss the content of an MKL entry, I felt I should do the same on the topic of a thread in the England MKL about the "1903 (or possibly 1902) No.1 Mk1 ShtLE (Short Lee-Enfield) Rifle".

My interest in Lee Enfields really started with being given a Short Lee Enfield Mk1***. Realising there was something different about the rifle from other ".303's", I set about finding out as much as I could so the restoration could be as authentic as possible. One thing that has haunted me ever since is the continued use of the term "No1 Mk1". People tell me that they are called that in reference books, and besides "we all know what we are talking about". I find this attitude towards fostering miss-information more than a little disturbing. Not knowing about what could be called an obscure fact and not being willing to learn about an obscure fact are two different things.

To this end I would like to point out that at the time of the changes to nomenclature for British service small arms on the 31st of May, 1926; for examples of the "Vocabulary"; the "Rifle, Short, MLE MkIII*" became the "Rifle, No1 MkIII*". The "Rifle, Short, .22 RF MkIV" became the "Rifle, No2 MkIV*" and so on.

The announcements go on to list several rifles as obsolete including, for eg; "Rifles, Charger-Loading, MLE"

To take things a little further, in typical British fashion of leaving no stone unturned, there was mention of "Those rifles omitted from Vocabulary but retained in store for possible future requirements were:"

Rifles, Short, MLE:-
Mark 1
Mark 1*
Mark 1***
Converted Mark II
Converted Mark II*
Converted Mark IV

Taking in this information, the "Rifle, Short, MLE Mk1" (and it's modified forms) were not only NOT given the "No1" tag, but were stated in the List Of Changes to be "omitted" from the vocabulary.

I leave this open for comment by all. Personally I feel that a source such as the Milsurp Knowledge Library, set up for information and education, cannot afford to perpetuate a mistake even if many people choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

Reference for information, The Lee-Enfield Story by Ian Skennerton (1993) - ISBN: 185367138X. Page 172.

Son, I agree completely. Proper nomenclature for the above referenced MKL library SHOULD read "1903 manufactured Sht.LE Mk1 rifle" or "Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) Mk1 rifle manufactured in 1903".

I suspect the admin will be along to make suitable changes shortly - perhaps even appending your entire post under the comments section :)

thanks for the input, this is indeed how the system is supposed to work.

The question I have is whether the rifle should be described with the nomenclature in use at the time of manufacture, or later adopted nomenclature?

My preference is for that which was in use when the rifle was built.

In this case it doesn't matter because a Short Magazine Lee Enfield Mk1*** only ever had one official naming convention. It was not in front line service when the naming convention changed in 1924. Hence, it did not receive a number designation in front of the Mark designation ;)

Right, but what if we have a 1914 SMLE MkIII in the MKL? Call it a Rifle, No1 MkIII or Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee Enfield Mk III?

See the point I'm trying to make?

in that case, either convention would be correct. Pick which one you like ;)

I think that if you refer to it as it is stamped on the buttsocket you can't go wrong.

I would call it a 1914 ShtLE MkIII

but when refering to them in general I will use the the No1 series and No4 series and refer to some as the early No1 rifles when talking about the ShtLE I and other rifles in pre MkIII configuration

When you think about it there's been several trains of thought on the "correct" way to refer to individual models. One thing most can agree on is that there is three basic configurations. The MLM/ MLE, the SMLE and the No4. Obviously there is no problem with the "Long Lee's" (another term most seem to have no problem with) as there is only two significant variations, Metford barrel or Enfield barrel. Getting a little more specific and you find earlier rifles with 8 round magazines, then you get into Metford profile barrels with Enfield rifling, ten round magazines, rifles with and without provision for a clearing rod, slight variations in swivels, cut off plates, dial sight plates etc. Where most would not know the specifics on each of six models, (MLM I, MLM I*, MLM II, MLM II*, MLE I, MLE I*) me included, a quick reference to the right book and you know exactly what's being discussed.

When the short rifle was developed to standardise the weapon across all branches of the military, the obvious way to differenciate was to call it the "Short Rifle". After all, the main reason for the change was related to the length. Also, other than the introduction of the first charger loading system, the only other significant difference was the change to a receiver mounted safety. The next major modification was the charger bridge itself. After this the changes through to the end of the "SMLE" were not as dramatic, hence the use of the asterix to denote subtle changes as had been done with the MLM/ MLE rifles. It wasn't untill the poms decided they needed to simplify the names as the system by this time also included several other designations mainly concerning SMLE rifles made by converting the then obsolete "Long Lee's". With WW1 long over, and stores of the MkIII and MkIII* rifles sufficient in number, the "powers that be" decided on another "standardisation" of the system. Either a rifle would conform to the current pattern, which was to be known as the Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee Enfield No1 MkIII or III*, or it was to be "omitted". Rifles that did not comply and couldn't easily be made comply were either stripped for parts or put in store against future possible needs. At this point, they would retain their designation- the marking on the butt socket, whether it be as a MkI type or a converted type, usually with most recent designation on the left side of the butt socket.

Next developement was a total re-vamp of the design. Mainly due to advances in machining and manufacturing technology, it was decided a whole new rifle that was quicker and cheaper to make would be adopted. As far as the nomenclature went, the "Rifle No1" was as above, the "Rifle No2" designation had been given to the standardised form of the .22 Trainer (now there's a topic that gets more involved again). The "Rifle No3" designation was given to American made Pattern 14 rifle. Next in line was "Rifle No4" (MkI), given to the new design, which after introduction also went through several slight modifacations to specs and had the traditional * and mark changes to denote improvement name. At this point it is important to know the term "Short Rifle" was dropped, and so the new model was NOT an SMLE, but simply "Rifle No4".

Natural progression saw the next major change being a shorter rifle again, given the name "Rifle No5". Interesting to note, even though there had been rifles of this length in many models pre 1903, and they had been given the name "Carbine", the British stopped short of ever calling the "No5" a carbine officially. Another generally accepted term for the No5 rifles is "Jungle Carbine", although the model designation should probably used when refering to a specific rifle.


Ok, enough of quoting history...... Here is where the personal opinion part comes in. Generally speaking, there are the "Long Lee", the SMLE, and the No4 and No5 rifles. All (I think) acceptable generalisations. For the "Long Lee" go to MLM or MLE to be more specific and use "Mk" and "*" to be precise.

The broard terms SMLE or Short Rifle are fine for all, I would use model designation as it appears on the rifle if needing to be specific. Only post 1926rifles will have anything different, which can be used as marked. As long as the term No1 isn't applied to the converted rifles (Long Lee's that were shortened and marked with ConD.??) or the Mk1 models, then there wouldn't be any confusion.

I'd say the No4 and No5 rifles are easy enough as long as "SMLE" isn't used.

In summing up, what I have done here is just list the progression of models and terminology. Anyone that doesn't share the interest to the extent others do, can at least now understand how it all came about with this brief overview.
And then I have applied a few generalisations in the naming of the groups/models as they seem to be accepted in other groups. The big advantage I see with the set-up here is the opportunity for collectors of all types of milsurps to gather together on boards with themes that apply to all, as well as look at specific areas of interest. I personally concerntrate on SMLE rifles, and a little either side before and after. I'm the first to admit I know bugger all about almost all of the other types of milsurp out there, but am looking forward to dabbling into them through the resources available here.
Hopefully members will correct any goofs I make when refering to the pieces that are specific to their interest and steer me in the right direction. Learning is what it is all about.

Once again, the bottom part of this post is opinion only, and I am only one voice. Please comment.
Cheers,
Son.