Bantam Butt question No.1 Mk.III*

My interest in the Bantam butt stock has been aroused by my recent acquisition of a No.1 Mk.III* fitted with a Bantam butt stock. The first one I have ever seen in the flesh.

The rifle in question is an all matching (action body, bolt, barrel, rear sight and nose cap. The forearm is not numbered) 1940 No.1 Mk.III* BSA Dispersal rifle, every thing on it seems to be correct, but the butt stock is an Enfield made Bantam butt that is inlet for a marking disk. The rifle also shows no sign of ever having been FTRed It leads me to these questions.

How long were the Bantam butts used? IIRC production of Bantam butts started for the SMLE Mk.III in 1914 with the formation of the Bantam Regiments, but when did production stop? Did it stop in 1916 when men under regulation height were no longer accepted into regiments, or were Bantam stocks produced to the end of No.1 Mk.III* production? If they were not produced after 1916, what is one doing on a BSA Dispersal rifle? From what I have read, it was not to uncommon for them to end up on cadet rifles, but I don't believe this was a cadet rifle.

Also, one other question... Does anyone know who (what country) cut the hand guard legs off? As far as I can tell that is the only thing "wrong" with this rifle.

Any thoughts, insights or other information is greatly appreciated.

Bantam butts were available from Ordnance during the National Service era, right up until 1963 when the last of them left.

Cutting the legs off the handguards was a UK EMER modification authorised in about 1962 or so to extend the life of the spare parts for those No1's still in service with the Cadet Forces. Contrary to your belief, it was VERY common for Cadet Forces to have No1 rifles, up until the 90's they were still in service but they were all getting very old by then and were all withdrawn with the No4's as the 5.56mm L98 took over.

It'd be difficult to tell whether a rifle was a Cadet rifle as they were all maintained at local unit or Field Workshops to a set service standard

Peter,

Thanks for the information on the Bantam, and thanks VERY much for the information on the handguard legs. :bow: Your knowledge is much appreciated!!! Now that I know it was an official British mod I no longer feel the burning need to replace the handguards:super:

As for the Cadet Force, I know they used No.1s, was just stating that I did not think this particular rifle was or had been a Cadet rifle. It is however, just my opinion...... And we all know what they say about opinions:lol:

Again thanks for the information.... Especially about the handguards.

While talking of Bantam size butts, I was asked to shorten a small butt to a bantam-ish size for one of the shooting team in the Welch Regiment so set about it. Got pretty well to the end and fitting the butt plate, only to discover that the wood that I'd cut off to shorten the butt meant that the angle of the wood towards the toe of the butt meant that the butt plate area was too short and you couldn't get a butt plate to fit as it was now far too long! Even then, the sling swivel recess had to be plugged and moved up the butt because the butt plate screw now screwed in deeper, and ran into the sling loop brackt screw. It was never ending...................., even after cutting the butt plate short and re-profiling it.

I abandoned the idea and decided to get a 'new' Bantam size butt. We established the old part number, made a few phone calls to 'the desk' at Ordnance and a few days later a good used bantam arrived - together with the guillotined back end of a No1 rifle!

Bantam length buttstocks on No1's seem most common on Indian rifles, or on rifles that have had the tropical paint protection added under the furniture.

However, I've seen far fewer of these rifles than Captain Laidler has, I reckon!

There was only one fitted to a Greek issue Long Branch No.4 out of a few hundred I had here at one time. I have the Canadian Bantam No.4 butts in stock in new condition as wrapped in April 1967 at No.25 Central Ordnance Depot in Montreal, PQ. They aren't a big seller because they're so short however I've sold some to guys fitting up rifles for their kids and wives. I've even sold them to folks making book ends out of them as they're beautiful figured North American black walnut!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

While talking of Bantam size butts, I was asked to shorten a small butt to a bantam-ish size for one of the shooting team in the Welch Regiment so set about it. Got pretty well to the end and fitting the butt plate, only to discover that the wood that I'd cut off to shorten the butt meant that the angle of the wood towards the toe of the butt meant that the butt plate area was too short and you couldn't get a butt plate to fit as it was now far too long! Even then, the sling swivel recess had to be plugged and moved up the butt because the butt plate screw now screwed in deeper, and ran into the sling loop brackt screw. It was never ending...................., even after cutting the butt plate short and re-profiling it.

I abandoned the idea and decided to get a 'new' Bantam size butt. We established the old part number, made a few phone calls to 'the desk' at Ordnance and a few days later a good used bantam arrived - together with the guillotined back end of a No1 rifle!

---

If I'm reading it correctly then - a bantam but was made shorter from the 'front end' rather than the 'back end' otherwise a different sized butt-plate would be needed correct ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Bantam length buttstocks on No1's seem most common on Indian rifles, or on rifles that have had the tropical paint protection added under the furniture.

---

For use by Gurkhas I imagine. I know that denims, originally for use by Gurkha soldiers, were issued to Army Cadet Force units in the 1970s.

Bantam butts were originally introduced into the British Army because, at the time, so many city dwellers were undernourished and hence very short in stature.

It begs the question that if they were undernourished in civvy life, then just how did they survive on the Army rations. It wasn't the quantity (well....., it was, sort of....) but the way the fitters and turners set about it in the cook-house.

THEY liked to call themselves chefs but we called the cooks fitters and turners due to the delicate way that they sloshed it up by fitting it into pots and turning it into xxxt.

Our cooks must have been fitters and turners as well. Though I think Dr. Seuss visited my Mess Hall in Ft. Lewis a time or two as we had the joy of dinning on green eggs and ham several times.

Still tossing over the idea of fitting a longer butt to my rifle to make it work for me. A Normal butt is perfect, and even a Short butt fits me fairly well, but the Bantam is just too short.

As for it not being a Cadet rifle, most of that opinion was based on the cut handguard legs which I had thought was not done by the British (again thanks for that bit of information Peter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

It begs the question that if they were undernourished in civvy life, then just how did they survive on the Army rations.

---

Believe it or not, some of them were so undernourished they had to be brought up to weight and fitness before they could take the training. It shows how bad things were in civvy street, those chaps THRIVED on Army food. The same was true, but I believe to a lesser extent, in the Second World War.