RFI NoI Mk3 in grease.

It occured to me that we talk about many things on this forum many of them "normal and everyday" if you have been lucky enough to work with Enfields. However if you have come to them from a collecting point then much of the "normal" may be very unfamiliar.
In the wrap or in grease is just such a term very self explanitory but if you have never actually seen one you might not realise just how much crud there is to be removed.
This 1971 dated RFI NoI Mk3 has just come back from proof, yes it was proofed and passed in this condition. Whilst it was never "wrapped" as the home grown Enfields were it does give some idea of how much grease is applied to the entire rifle, woodwork included.
This rifle has almost certainly been in storage since it was made and underneath all that grease a new albeit RFI Enfield is waiting to come out, time to get my hands dirty :cheers:

Lucky you! Nice find though. I can't say I've seen a wire wrapped rifle with that late a date, though that's not saying much. In the 50's, a upper and lower metal band was developed and I would have thought to take the place of the wire for obvious reasons. I have 2 rifles with 2 different styles of the metal bands. Interesting.

In the very early 70's we were inspecting, re-wire-wrapping and returning to Ordnance a whole load of War Reserve No1 rifles. I explained all this in an article some time ago. We only had one cup to use to test them but if they HAD the cups in War Reserve, we didn't see them! I seem to recall that they had a dark green/khaki band on the butt and fore-end to show that they were fit to fire with the letters EY in yellow on the butt.

I should have specified I was speaking of the rifles done at Ishapore. Having said that, I have no idea if the metal bands were a total replacement for wire, or just an alternative. Peter, did you ever have those bands available?

No Spike. All of ours were wire, with the rifle rotating in a slowed down lathe while the wire was wound on as it slowly unrolled from a hand held bit of stout wood. When the workshop finally closed down in the early 2000's, the bit of wood and roll of wire was still there! Going back a bit, but I think it was the last 4 turns of the wire were unrolled, cleaned with wire wool and then soldered. What a palava.........

Yeah....I'll bet lots of fun! But, hey, just think about it. You are one of the few people around that can actually say.."Yep... Done that, and, for the crown". In retrospect, as menial as that may have been, if all jobs have their good and bad, that's not so terribly a bad, really. I've seen where you worked and if that was the "worst" of it....sign me up! lol. Anyway, it must mean a little something to have been part of these rifles history, even the wire wrapping bit.

Can someone explain exactly what the wire wrapping was designed to prevent? How is firing a grenade prone to splinter a wooden hand-guard or forestock, exactly? Does the wood splinter whilst leaving the barrel and action unscathed - does it not imply that the barrel has burst or the rifle action has been in some way horribly mutilated as well? And, if the barrel / action is being blown asunder to some extent, how does the wire wrapping save the day?
To me, reinforcing a rifle exterior to the surface of the wood seems like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Not really good engineering... or have I missed something?

Yep, you've missed the point Rob. If the grenade explodes in the cup - and it has happened on many occasions I can tell you - the gas pressure that will migrate into the barrel could lead to it bursting. The wire binding is simply to protect the firers hands and not protect the rifle.

I won't go into how the matallurgy of wire binding works, but it is simply another layer of tightly wrapped protection. Think this way. Written off rifle = cheap. Crunchies hands and face shredded = expense

Incidentally, the cup used on the rifle is fitted to THAT rifle in a special way. This is to ensure that the recoil during blast-off is taken down the BARREL ALONE and definately NOT onto the nose cap and then down the fore-end. Not a lot of people know that there's a special instruction about this matter

Added a bit later
I should have started this answer with '........That's a good question Rob and one that took a bit of thought too...........'

Incidentally, I put up somewhere a couple of instances where grenades have exploded in the cups. Not a pretty sight. There was an instruction for firers that should the grenade accidentally 'pop' or ignite while in the cup, through mistake or by a fault in the grenade, the rifle should be laid down, pointing in the direction of discharge, step back several feet and lay down too! I would have added an afterthought that '......make sure afterwards that the firer cleans his lower half thoroughly with toilet paper and warm soapy water.....'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

how the matallurgy of wire binding works, but it is simply another layer of tightly wrapped protection

---

Got it. Thanks. It's like "chain maille" armour on a knight. Thanks.

Wire wrapping is a very effective light weight additional strength. If you've ever seen an aircraft oxygen bottle then you'll know what I mean. The oxy bottles have wire wrap around the body meaning that the actual cylinder can be very thin skinned compared to a normal bottle.

Another example I can think of is the Nitrogen receiver used on side winder missiles. The bottles are think skinned, like foil and they are wrapped in fibreglass cord. It's unbelievable how much pressure wrapping can resist.

Peter, I accept all you say. And I'm sure the intentions of the designers are good. I understand the logic of wire wrapping, having been brought up in a home where my dad added soda to his whisky from a wire-wrapped soda siphon.

I am slightly skeptical about the effectiveness. Does it really protect the soldier? Does anyone have before and after pictures?
Looking at photos, if one goes off at the muzzle, the blast is about 40 inches from the soldier's face, so it's not just below the waist that would need a wipe down.
And also, looking at the article here

Milsurps Knowledge Library - WW1 Enfield Wire Wrapped Grenade Rifles and Dischargers

it strikes me that people don't hold the forestock where the wire is.

The crunchie in photo 3 really needs a bollock recoil protector surely, while the rest are correct. All I can do is to tell you that it works. As for photos, I did show some rifles that had come in for evaluation after training accidents with a view to re-writing the user instructions. Can anyone highlight the photos for Rob?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The crunchie in photo 3 really needs a bollock recoil protector

---

He's a Highland soldier...they don't need no stinkin' protection...

OK, now I'm getting confused (not unusual). In the big Skennerton book he mentions that the application of the 2.5 inch cup to the No. 4 rifle failed because the full recoil loading was put on the barrel whereas with the No. 1 rifle part of the loading was taken up by the nosecap/ forend. Looking at my own wire-wrap Ishapore, I can adjust the inner stub in the cup base such that at firing both barrel and forend will take up recoil. As Peter L. says, it it (the cup) is to be adjusted for the individual rifle which will have slight variance in barrel protrusion beyond the nosecap. If it was intended that all recoil was to be taken by the barrel that adjustable stub seems pointless. The way the Indians modified their grenade launcher rifles (extra heavy bolt in place of "Ishapore screw", apparently, in some cases, rubber pads behind forend, and the wire or sheet metal wrap) it would appear they expected the forend to take a heavy beating from grenade launching. The cross bolt and wire wrap could certainly protect against splintering of the forend. What am I missing?

Ridolpho

The answer is best given by asking another technical question. I appreciate why Ians previous NON technical comment is taken as the gospel but sometimes you have to......... Anyway. Now for the question. If you were firing a grenade from your EY No1 rifle, would you rather
a) have the full load of recoil taken directly down/along the strongest part of the rifle, to the body and into the butt. In addition, knowing that there was a gas seal - in the form of the adjustable cup nozzle - between the cup and said barrel or:
b) that the cup discharger base was held onto the nose cap where it might not even be in contact with barrel, so that the full load of the recoil was transmitted NOT along the strong steel tubular barrel but down the wooden fore-end?

Honest answer please!

The so called Ishapore screw (it's nothing of the sort and in any case, is a total red herring in this context) isn't even in the same place as the reinforcing bolt fitted to EY rifles. The cup is pulled firmly against the barrel by the lockable nozzle in the base to form a seal but is pulled backwards by the claws hooked into the nose cap

That makes sense to me, Peter. Particularly the part about the gas seal. However, the barrel only sticks out so-far (about 0.035inch on mine). Is the barrel stiff enough to stop the cup base assembly from routinely contacting the nosecap and forend on firing and taking some of the stress?

Ridolpho

In short, it's the slight variation in barrel protrusion that ensures that the nozzle is adjustable. So that it CAN be adjusted to suit the rifle that the cup is attached to. I can only assume that the barrel is firm enough to ensure that the recoil loading is taken on it and not the fore-end. Otherwise, it'd be self defeating and I am sure that the fore-ends would not be capable of absorbing the pounding meted out by more than a few grenade firings

Now that the beast is clean I thought there might be some interest in what was hiding under all the crud. I have no idea if what I see is "standard " to this type of wire wound rifle or in fact to the RFI SMLE in general as I have nothing to compare it with.
There is a strap accross the rear of the forend similar to the No4 MkI instead of the brass rod that is common to "Enfield" SMLE's.
Brass rods have been inserted just in front of the magazine and also on the top wood just in front of the rearsight neither areas show any sign of damage.
A metal strip appears to have been inserted under the left hand side of the rear wire wrap and the right hand side of the front wrap (looking forward down the barrel).
The rifle is "all matching" including the magazine and rearsight both of which have had previous numbers barred out, it carries an "FR" stamp to the left butt socket, could this be the same as our "FTR" mark? There is also a stamp on the butt, a circle with a D over the broad arrow with T & E either side, there appears to be a (W) under the broard arrow but it's very difficult to make out.
This rifle will never win any beauty contests but it is different....