Peter, ? on split No.1 handguards and forestocks

How common and how often did you see split lengthwise and or broken legs on handguards. or split lengthwise forestocks on No.1 rifles? I presume split handguards were less of a problem for the No.4.

I have been considering "1929 Textbook of Small Arms" comments regarding grenade firing. The book states that grenade firing puts a load on the rifle equivalent to dropping it 16 feet. Given a 9 lb. rifle, that puts a load on the rifle to 144 ftlb or when dropped one foot, the rifle sees 144lbs. Effects of rifle drill were not covered and may be worse.

Movement of the barrel & receiver vs. wood forestock centers around the thin web of wood located between the receiver boss that accepts the front triggerguard screw and at the back of the forestock. So it makes sense that the No. 1 forestock had the small brass transverse screw and insert plate at the rear of the forestock to limit stock splitting. The No.4 has the wrap around metal plate to so the same thing. Wire wrapping between the rear sight and receiver would seem to help as well.

Having fixed the rear problem, the load trasfers up to the area of the forestock in front of the receiver boss and splits occur there as well. I have seen a number of these failures. This also explains the "Indian" transvers screw intended to fix the sides of the forestock together--preventing splitting. Wire wrapping would seem to help here as well.

With all this movement going on---what is the effect on handguards? Is the No.1 handguard legs splitting off due to straight recoil or a twisting moment during recoil Does the front handguard split as it is driven against the rear sight base? Wire wrapping would seem to limit handguard travel. Were troops allowed to remove the handguards for cleaning? If so, then I can see where the damage comes from.

Thank you for your comments

Soooooooooo many questions, sooooooooo little time and soooooooo little expertise on the No1!

Broken handhguards. To be honest, I don't recall them being a real problem with NO1 rifles because we'd just reinforce any splits with a slip patch or replace the slip patch. The only service No1's still in the system when we had them were EY's in Malaya (I don't know whether it was a serious option to grenade throwing in the jungles or just a joke, but there you go!) and the mobilisation stocks in the UK but at the time we had spare part if they needed replacing. The others were school Cadet Forces that had them which were under our control. We didn't care whether they were owned by the schools or the MoD, we just overhauled them anyway. Later, we would cut the little wings off the FRONT handguard only if they were snapped or warped. I've repaired plenty of them in the past. So the answer is that splits and cracks weren't any more of a problem than No4's. If it can be repaired, then repair it. Replace it if it needed replacing. As a last resort, for broken ears, remove the ears on the front guard. REpair the rear guard

Don't forget, if it's properly fitted by the grenadier via the adjustable nozzle that I've mentioned several times earlier, then the cup is only held onto the nose cap but any THRUST is taken on the muzzle of the barrel tube itself and transferred down to the body and butt in the usual way.

I know others say that the binding is to do this that and the other in relation to recoil and other things, but of the hundred(s) or so EY's that I saw repaired, inspected and re-wired etc, I never say any horrors inside. The fact that they could be used as normal rifles in time of need and that the inspection criteria, except for a few general exceptions, was pretty much the same as a standard No1 says it all really. If I remember correctly, the EY inspection standard was the same as the sub standard

Peter I suspect that land based use of grenade throwers was for line throwing by communications and engineering companies. You also might have seen some Naval line throwers as well. best, p.

We did have some No4 based line throwers come through our main workshops, some didn't have sights either but to be honest, the Navy who used them weren't the most meticulous cleaners of their kit and the condition of these things was horrendous. I don't know how the rod ever fitted into the bore. I don't think that they were bound with metal straps or wire - in fact I'm SURE they weren't. We saw them come in from the dockyard in Singapore and from Portsmouth and via the Marine Armourers (Steve Xxx and Co!) at Plymouth.

The looped rod thinggies were heavily copper plated. I'd never thought about using them for throwing communication lines across rivers etc but throwing collection line for a steel wire comms cable is no different than doing the same for a steel hawser Here's a thought......... With a rod (either a line rod or grenade rod) the recoil is taking place within the barrel as the rod is commencing it's forward movement. While with the cup discharger, recoil only starts to take place when the expanding gas starts to move the grenade or am I forgetting something................ Newton and all that.....

We have a No4 cup discharger at work but I have not seen paperwork to elaborate on any trials. Does anyone out in forumland have any?