SMLE found by an author researching the fighting and retreat to Dunkirk

I guess it's another case of "never say never". I think the contract info brought up earlier in the thread shows the intent to at least support these weapons into WW2.
They were just ordered stored against possible future need in 1926. LoC entry A1635, which was part of the standardisation of small arms and accoutrements, states several rifles including the MkI series were "Omitted from Vocabulary" (meaning their name was not changed to No1 rifle) "But retained in store for possible future requirements" I suppose WW2 qualified as a "future requirement".

Peter, was the webbing kit the old 1908 patt that was still in issue during 1939 and 1940?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton1

Hang it on the wall where it can be seen.

---

In this country, even in its current state, it is s Section 1 firearm and therefore must be kept under lock and key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-07ShortLee

Peter, was the webbing kit the old 1908 patt that was still in issue during 1939 and 1940?

---

There are numerous pictures/movies of members of the BEF wearing it - and the pre-battledress service dress uniform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

Peter, was the webbing kit the old 1908 patt that was still in issue during 1939 and 1940?

There are numerous pictures/movies of members of the BEF wearing it - and the pre-battledress service dress uniform

---

Yes, just thought Peter might have seen the webbing that was found.

So it seems the evidence indicates this rifle was lost in 1940, not 20 years earlier.

Well, checking the info I have indicates that the cut-off was never reintroduced for Land service use post-WWI. It is true that India and Australia reintroduced the cut-off slot MKIII production between WWI and WWII, I can find no documentation that indicates any rifles were to be issued issued in the land service with the cut-off installed in this period. All the references I see in Skennerton refer to the use of the cut-off as being a Naval issue item exclusivity since before WWI. Even in WWI all rifles sent over to the army were supposed to be sighted for the MKVII cartridge, at least after 1915.

The barleycorn front sight with a MKVI rear sight leaf seems to be something one would find on SMLE MKI, MKI*, MKII, MKII*. The Navy rifles pulled from service and sent to the BEF Army in 1915 should have all been updated to MKI*** form. Not so for those rifles that remained in Naval service. It is known that some Navy rifles did not get updated to MKVII sighting in WWI, every one of the SMLE MKI rifles in US collections that is still set up for MK VI seem to be naval issue, at least the ones I have heard of that were not restorations (excluding the Australian police rifles).

The fact is the rifle described seems to be in Naval issue form that would predate the SMLE MKI*** modification. So is it possible that there was some naval personnel in the area? I know that the BEF had a naval division in WWI, I find no similar reference to such in WWII, but perhaps some experts on the BEF in 1939~1940 could comment on this.

The only reference similar in US service is it is my understanding that there are still some pre M16 adoption green furniture AR-15 rifles in US Air-force stocks. Some time ago a picture of one put out at an Air-force small arms display was shown, compete with all the early features, such a rifle would date from between 1962 and pre March 1964. The rifle shown was part of the first 8,500 rifles produced to Air force contract. Prior to this posed picture I had heard this from a fellow high power competitor, who claimed there were still some stocks of green furniture AR-15 marked M16 rifles with the early features in Air-force stocks. The M16/M16A1 configuration has been obsolete even in National Guard service since 1998, or I am so told be reservists. The regular Army last used M16A1 rifles in the mid 1990s. Most of the Air-force M16 rifles were supposed to be updated to M16A2 configuration in the 1990s, M193 ball is no longer procured for US services, yet apparently some of the these rifles still exist in the system in the Air-force.

So if a serious crisis occurred, and the Air force had to go in to some land-locked nation to evacuate the Army, it might come to pass in the emergency that Air-force personnel would be issued such rifles prior to being sent out to coordinate/support the evacuation. Such things occur in an emergency, those chaps would not be expected to use the rifles unless in a last ditch stand (M16 rifles can be used with M855 up to ~91 meters and hit a man sized target). If the US was facing a possible loss of an entire army corps, small details such as that would not be sweated, any rifle that was in stock would be issued. The last 10 days in Dunkirk were such an emergency.

Of course the above is all supposition, but it is very had for me to accept that any such rifles would still be on issue to the army, in a configuration that was not standard to the Army even in WWI, sighted for a cartridge that had not been on issue for 30 years. Naval support or supply personnel might explain that.

The MkIII with cutoff was produced by BSA up to & including 1941, it was in 1940 the cutoff became obsolete, you have to remember the MkV, No1 MkVI & the trials No4 were all fitted with cutoffs.
Pretty much the introduction of the No4 Mk1 meant the end of the cutoff, piling swivel & the butt disc.

Very good Point 5th Battalion.

That said, since arms were intended for adoption by the Naval service, Land service and the Air Ministry, prototype arms would have such features. That such arms have the provision do not mean the Land services issued such arms. Perhaps some arms assembled with cut-offs were hastily issued to the Land services. It is also possible that arms that at one time had cut-offs never had them removed.

Lets review the history of the cut-off issue:

On the MLM and MLE it was always issued.

As a result of the SMLE MK I trials, the cut off is said to be assembled for Naval issue only (page 86 of Major Reynolds Book, The Lee Enfield Rifle). This order dates from December of 1902

Feedback from officers from regiments utilizing Native troops objected, nonetheless when the SMLE MKI was reintroduced in 12 August 1903, the Cut off was only approved for Naval issues once again. (same source page 98).

Because of objections in India, on 17 August 1906 the cut-off was reintroduced and was to be fitted to all SMLE rifles in the British army, including overseas forces (page 107)

Skennerton (2007) notes an order for all rifles to be so equipped on 25 October 1906 (page 132)

Both Reynolds and Skennerton agree that when introduced in 26 January 1907 all SMLE MKIII rifles were equipped with cut-offs.

A new pattern of cut-off was introduced for service on 5 March 1909, to be applied to all rifles

Now when the removal of the cut off was approved for the army is not quite certain. The order for transfer of the SMLE MKI*** rifles to the army was in August of 1915 (all had to be sited for the MKVII ammunition), and it predates the first reference to the Land servcie removal of the cut-off, at least that I know of. The approval of deletion of the cut-off and the cut-off slot to BSA is dated from September of 1915. The formal date for approval of the SMLE MKII* is 2 January 1916 (Reynolds page 120).

After that date, every reference to the Land services contain no requirement for a cut off. In fact Skennerton references that the only service requiring post this date was the Navy, and rifles dated 1917 had the * canceled and were issued with the cut-off (for naval issue only).

Of course it is possible that I have missed a reference someplace, but every reference I can find on the trails rifles refers to the cut-off requirement being a Navy requirement alone, both on the No 1 MK V and No 1 MK VI. If I am in error on this, please feel free to correct me, though I would very much appreciate a source. Not because I do not trust you, but because I would like to read it and fully understand it.

regards
Frederick303

Fred........ There's no other way I can explain this because I wasn't there when it was found but we can see it, in the flesh and it has its pedigree/provenance written all over it - even to the missing magazine and bolt that has quite clearly and most obviously been removed at the same time the rifle was rammed into the framework of the hayloft. But, like the mystery rifle, in the world of aerodynamicists, bumble bees CANNOT fly, even using brute force but they do. We know they do, because we see them and they've been doing it happily for many years. There will be an answer of course but us mere mortals who only understand engineering won't ever grasp the reason

It's just like this rifle. In theory, according to the books, it shouldn't have been there. But guess what............, just like the bumble bee that does indeed fly, it WAS there and we can see it with our own eyes. If this was a Court of Law, they'd say that the evidence was beyoned all reasonable doubt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

The MkIII with cutoff was produced by BSA up to & including 1941,.

---

Indeed, I have one and it has a butt disc and windage rear sight too.

Frederick303,

The Daily Mail photo archive in UK contains many classic 1939-40 war photos (including, incidentally, a series of rifle refurb activity at Weedon or similar); several of the photos clearly show line infantry (ie not TA or support corps) carrying No1 MkIIIs complete with cut-off and volleys. Clearly unmodified MkIIIs were in common usage at the time.



This rifle was recovered from an attic in UK; its a completely original WW2-issue rifle marked to a regiment local to the place it was found. It has a cut-off:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...85382701-1.jpg


....and an unpinned windage-adjustable rearsight....

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...85382704-1.jpg