Folks,
A friend of mine has sent me the following pics.
Anybody got any ideas as to what it is:confused:
Cheers,
Simon.
Attachment 32803Attachment 32804Attachment 32805Attachment 32806
Printable View
Folks,
A friend of mine has sent me the following pics.
Anybody got any ideas as to what it is:confused:
Cheers,
Simon.
Attachment 32803Attachment 32804Attachment 32805Attachment 32806
Wasn't that the prototype of the emergency rifle, like the Faulkner Bren, to be manufactured should the Boche arrive uninvited in 1940
Peter,
Do you have an example in the Weapons Collection?
Cheers,
Simon.
So Peter was the design easier to manufacture or what? Please tell us more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I must say I would really like to get my hands on one.
We don't have one but we have a BESAL/Faulkner Bren.
This is very different from the BSA simplified rifle I have and the other one I have seen at the Pattern Room.
Wow, thats something neat you don't see every day. How rare/collectible/valuable is it?
It was just a suggestion Paul but there are similarities don't you think?
Thanks Simon. Your friend sent them to me as well, but I must admit I've no idea about it. Just to my untrained eye it does not really look to me as though it would be appreciably quicker/easier to make than a standard SMLE; many of the parts are existing SMLE or modified SMLE anyway. And the nose cap does not look any easier to make than a conventional SMLE version...Most odd. It reminds me a little of those SMLE/Mauser hybrids the Turks made out of captured rifles. But yes, I must also admit it looks a little reminiscent of PB's rifle.....but rather LESS simplified.
ATB
I can't see any date stamps in the available pix, it may be "Kosher", it may be quite old, or of somewhat more recent manufacture.
My notes are:
It looks to be based on a Lee Enfield rifle, not a SMLE.
Note the retention of the volley sights.
The band for the piling swivel looks a bit "Lee Enfield rifle"
The distinctive "hammerhead" shape of the safety lever looks like the early Mk1 Lee Metford pattern.
The cocking piece has a "Mk1 Metford" flavour.
The odd-shaped charger guide held on with slot-head screws.
The very odd profile of the lower surface of the butt socket.
The butt socket appears deeper and appears to be machined completely differently at the front face.
The rear-sight protector "ears" seem to be shorter than on a "proper" SMLE. Given that the Mk1 SMLE and it trials predecessor used "ears' built into the handguard, this feature is definitely odd.
The front sight protector is integral with the nosecap/bayonet standard but there is no indication of whether blade or barleycorn, nor of adjustment method (if any).
What is also interesting is that the bayonet adapter is similar in shape to those used on the US "trench guns" of the 12gauge pump persuasion. Question for the owner: does it take a SMLE bayonet or an Arisaka bayonet - the "inspiration" for the '07 sword-bayonet?
The profile of the magazine case is of a much later style.
Maybe this is a very exotic Khyber-Pass special.
There were several variations of the emergency Bren made so why not several variations of the emergency rifle - if it is indeed such a beast? As for utilising some of the parts of the standard rifle, then surely, that's the whole point! Even the emergency Bren used many standard parts.
From an engineering point, then it is clearly FAR simpler to make/fabricate. You machine a simple butt socket end with the locking lugs then you machine a relatively simplebreeching up threaded area then join the two together around a simplified mag housing. Ater all, that's how the real McCoy is made up, albeit in one piece. I wouldn't mind betting that the nose cap is a wrapped and folded fabrication too. In fact, I'm going to put my money on it - and £20 to any Forces charity if it turns out to be wrong
I'll call milled from the solid for 20...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
ETA: Odd how the nosecap retains far more finish than the action body, but it could just be that it's a different steel. US WWI M1911s seem to fade at different rates, too, depending on the part.
It's not just the different steel, it's the heat -treatment and post processing.
Good example: A few years ago I was involved in a project making parts that were differentially hardened, a bit like what happens to Lee Enfield cocking pieces. The part was coming out of heat-treatment and going to the coating bath which was somewhat similar to a blueing tank.
They would come out with a bizarre purple-crimson tint in places and a faint grey in others. The engineers were perplexed. I told them to go and give the parts a light blast with the finest grade glass beads in their blasters and get them in the tank a quickly as possible. I also told them to drop the start temperature of caustic brew in the the "oxide bath" 5 degrees and bring it up to “normal” when they saw a colour change in the part.
Oddly enough, it worked. The light bead-blasting micro-fractured the ceramic (oxide) skin left by the heat treatment. The mechanical action of the beads also activated the skin of the steel and the parts came out of the tank (Du Lite commercial process), an even, solid satin black.
I learned that trick from an old gunsmith who used to make a lot of odd replacement parts, although he would usually acid etch the parts before neutralizing and blueing. Using an acid should be done with care on stressed parts because hydrogen embrittlement can be an issue unless you bake them in an oven afterwards.
Peter a few things bother me about this rifle. I am not saying it is a fake. I just wonder about the some if its features. If it is a WWII attempt at a cost reduced rifle, why include the volley sights and the shape of the nose cap does not appear to be cost reduced (considering weight and machine time for the various radiused surfaces). Barrel markings might be enlighteing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Afganistan/Dara manufacture? That is a fascinating question. Someone with access could get them to make anything. Their appearance quality has greatly improved. I could see something like this being made up (or a group with "design" variations) and introduced into the collecting community. Certainly there is no way to prove what is correct or not.
I wish someone had a copy of the Navy Arms sales catalog that offered the Greener Factory Collection ---it might prove interesting.
That IS a fabricated nosecap. I'm not famiuliar with these Darra fakes except for the AK's that we have brought back and the quality of this work isn't the dire quality from Darra. That's just my opinion Paul and others. And I stand by my bet. That's £20 to any forces charity if it's not an emergency variation.
While I'm not a historian, there are certain things on this that are soooooooooo similar to the production emergency Brens and P'14's we have that..... Yep, I think my £20 will stay in my pocket.
However, so that a Forces charity doesn't miss out on my £20, anyone prepared to bet a similar amount the other way?
If it has volley sights, then it must be pre-1916, otherwise who'd bother putting them on?
I guessing - just guessing - that this rifle has turned up in the north of England.....?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...odSMLE12-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Fabricated from bent up heavy gage plate? I'm thinking not. Again, I'm in for US$20 or thereabouts. The front of the cap with the boss may be brazed on, though.
Surely, you can see the left and right side of the curvature JM....... My bet was referring to the rifle as a whole and not just the nose cap, but I'll open the wager up as win or loose, it's a good cause. As for the volley sight, could that just be a case of using the sight leaf as a spacer. It doesn't look as though a space has been recessed for it to fold down so it could be a case of 'standard parts' again.
Anyway, I've said my bit. Interesting thread
Not quite sure where it is, he didn't offer the information when he sent me the pics so I didn't bother asking to be honest .Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
This is turning into a very interesting thread though.
Cheers,
Simon.
yes, by all means keep it up, here is a small part of Enfield history I have never heard of.
Perhaps someone can post pictures of emergency P14 and Bren guns for comparison?
Thanks. I knew I had see that profile before but could not recall where.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
From the pictures this would appear to me to be a test of a solution to the problem of recoil altering the angle between butt and barrel which is, of course, normally opposed by compression of the forend wood between the vicinity of the "king screw" and the (normally perfect?) butt/ wrist interface. In the pictured rifle it appears a slightly modified action body (no longer with wrists attached) sits on a very solid housing which is attached to the wrists. With the butt firmly attached this is an attempt to emulate a solid stock with its improved control over the angular deflection. My question would be, as a cost cutting measure why not chop off the wrists and revert to the original Remington-Lee one piece stock design? It has always fascinated me as to why the decision was made to go the two-piece stock route. I've seen references to "utilization of stocks of Martini-Henry stocks. Is that for real?
The Lee design has very small recoil absorbing features, so no improvement there! Also finding suitable wood that much longer is a bit more difficult and expensive. With the rear locking system, I think the correct decision was made when it was decided to use the butt socket design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
(I don't have yet a photo thread on the 1882 and 1885 Lees, But you may find the "1879" and "1899" model Remington Lee threads interesting.) Click on the links below:
1879 Remington Lee Photos, etc. (Warning! LOTS of big photos)
See Post #6 for action body and inletting photos.
1899 Remington Lee
See Posts #8,9, and 11 in the 1899 thread for action and inletting details, particularly Photo #11g.
My M1899 Remington Lee had a dirty great crack in the wrist. So the LE is stronger in that area.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The very original Remington Lee brought to the UK is still housed at the Small Arms School at Warminster. And to cut a long story short, the butt snapped off at the wrist during the bayonet fighting phase of the trisl. As a direct result of this, thereafter, it was a two piece butt and fore-end with a stout stock bolt and they ain't broke since!
That rifle is a simplified design for wartime production. It has it written all over it and has soooo much in common with the other designs
I note the subject rifle has a visible screw for the volley sight plate located in the fore stock.
it looks like a French attempt to do Something. Has a MAS look to it.
The fore-end looks like it was converted from a standard fore-end. Hence the volley fire foresight. Another use of standardised parts or damaged standard parts to my way of thinking. It'll also be recessed for the rear handguard retainers. I'm sure the drawings will have beenb prepared so as to eliminate the use of the top handguard and the volley fire sights.
Ridolpho, think simplified AK47. The great man decided that for its inherent strength, all his AK47 chassis (body) REALLY needed was the breeching and locking facility at the front and the support for the butt that takes the recoil at the rear. Eliminate the great steel machined part between the two, replace it with a flat one-hit stamped pressing, insert the front bit and the back bit then insert the ribs and pins and you have an AKM.
That's just my take on this enigma. Mind you, I have £20 resting on it being a wartime cheapening exercise
How far north ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
The person they're thinking about to is far to the East of you Big Man! But if it's the same person, I don't quite think that he'd have the mechanical acumen to make/fabricate this
So, who has the rifle? When are we all going to see it?
Has anyone at Leeds seen it?
Am I the only one to think this is a cut and shut photoshop fantasy?
The area behind the trigger on one view has not been cleaned up and looks metalic
and the view from the other side shows this area clear, but I know nothing about photoshop and not much more about Enfields.
I had noticed it, but it looks more like a clean-up of the area surrounding the rifle. There's several subtle features that a photoshopped image would not have. So unless the photos are from the mind of a firearms AND photo-editing genius, then it likely exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by 303 Collector
The real question would be, why? Not worth that much trouble for just for a trigger hung on the body. Presumably done to give adequate strength for a more powerful cartridge. Looks no later than the 20s and perhaps earlier as mentioned.
Best guess is a trade sample which would have been shopped around to countries that already used a larger, more powerful cartridge than the LE could accommodate.
Or perhaps offered to countries that had been buyers of the LE and were being tempted by the purveyors of rimless cartridges and Mauser actions? A sort of "we can do it too" design.