Printable View
Maybe someone with a good photogenic Lanchester could put up a couple of portrait pictures of it like the L2A3/Mk4 file. It could start a bit of an interesting thread. While I was Tech Officer doing the trials of the xxxxxxx for the Navy, the Naval Ordnance trial overseer brought in for me to read the NOD-BR* for the Lanchester with some interesting (?) snippets of info. On the other hand, does anyone actually own a live Lanchester or a UK Dewat one
*Naval Ordnance Depot Book of Reference
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ester20R-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ester20L-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ster20fa-1.jpg
It’s not the most photogenic………… but it’s a sweetheart to shoot.
Thats a cracking example Vincent, I did have one on my shopping list, but unfortunately I doubt I will be able to procure one now, due to the changes.
The good news is many old spec deac Lanchesters made it onto the market and into collections over the years.
The thing I love about the Lanchester is how they wear their history, with sold out of service arrows (never seen them on a sten?), foreign ownership markings etc
The NOD booklet/pamphlet dated 1959, issued to Naval Armaments Depots was pretty basic and written in usual stuffy Naval type language. It did mention to Ordnance Officers that the Lanchester would be the mainstay of the Royal Navy due to its availability within the service and all that stuff. So presumably the Navy would not adopt the Sten Gun.
In an effort to standardise the Lanchesters across the board it was suggested to Ordnance Officers that no standard Lanchesters be utilised in future ship disposals. From this I read it to mean that where ships were due to be sold as a complete unit, then the SMG's required to complete the ships equipment should be serviceable but of the non standard type*. The variables likely to be encountered were the obsolete Mk1 and another 'troublesome' variant with a pressed magazine housing that was prone to looseness. The only sight to remain in service was the standard mulit aperture variation ( no...., it's a twin flip-overleaf surely?). So the adjustable sight shown on Vinces was deemed non-standard. They also mentioned composite trigger housings - which I presume to mean the later welded-on trigger mech housings.
No time or opportunity to copy the pamphlet but I did take rough notes. These later Lanchesters were pretty much what we encountered from the Aust, NZ and RN in the Base Workshops. They all seemed to be the later all-welded detail with flip-over sights and heavy cast mag housings. Never noticed a true Mk1 type. Mind you, at the time - late 60's - I didn't know a Mk1 existed! Some of the butt/fore-ends were dire quality but easily patched
Someone else must have one or two.
* The 2x Lanchesters shown by Vince and Claven2, with the tangent sights are the later non-standard type which would seem to indicate they versions sold off or otherwise disposed of early on, while the fixed flip-over sight type remained in Naval service
A couple of interesting points to note. Photo 9 shows the early method of securing the barrel to the casing using an enlarged screw head recessed into an arc machined out of the casing. This indicates an early gun. This method of retention proved useless because on each shot, the barrel tried to rotate against the direction of the rifling. The retaining screw continued to simply batter itself against the crescent recess. The later method with the shaft of a bolt located at the top front of the magazine housing proved far superior.
Something VERY interesting and shown in pictures 25 and 25 illustrates to the keen eye just how early this Lanchester is. The trigger mechanism is a Mk1 trigger mech that will give semi and auto fire. Illustrated by the recessed trigger bar extension (item 2, illustration 9, P.9 TGOD) that has been welded closed to the trigger bar (1) to give auto fire only. Are you there Claven? Could this gun be a future project to revert to its original Mk1 Auto/Semi auto fire status.
We're not in a position to see the front of the trigger mech housing to see whether the hole for the original change lever (7) could be fitted. Also interesting is the fact that this trigger mech housing box still has the screw holes indicating that it was made with a view to be screwed to the main casing. But welded on during manufacture. A very early gun started as a Mk1, using Mk1 parts but completed as a Mk1*
Incidentally, it was Lanchester who designed the crown/planet wheel type differential used in all(?) axles now
It’s strange how the Mk1 Lanchester trigger selector mechanism didn’t work out. It’s an adaptation of the MP28 selector mechanism and it works really well in that SMG.
I have a Mk1 mechanism that is only missing the selector. The MP28 hinged tripping lever fits it perfectly. It’s funny how some MP28 parts fit the Lanchester, like the barrel for example, and others are close but don’t fit, like the firing pin. I had to turn a MP28 firing pin down a little to get it to fit into the Lanchester breech block.
The Lanchester Mk1 tangent sight was not mounted very well to the tube. I can see where it would have become troublesome in service. The MP28 sight it was copied from is silver soldered to the tube and seems well attached.
Is the trigger mech you mention welded up Vince? Is it worth un-sticking it and maybe making a selector? Nice to see it out in real life.
The reason for the early change was that the trigger mech parts were all sub contracted out. The system for that sort of production wasn't streamlined and caused severe bottlenecks. The CISA told Cheshunt (the relocated DD(E) office) to get it simplified which they did.
There's clearly not a lot of collector interest in the Lanchester. Certainly not as much as I thought there'd be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
The mechanism is not welded. It’s in my spares box. I will dig it later.
I never use the repetition setting on SMGs, just automatic. Making a selector would be nice from a historic point of view. Don’t think I would use it much.
Not many people are familiar with the Lanchester here. If they have heard of it, about half of them call it a “Lancaster.”
It looks almost medieval when the bayonet is fitted. What a great weapon it must have been for boarding ships.
I recently had a browse through some old early 60's US gun magazines and there were plenty of Lanchesters offered for sale, presumably as auto fire too!
Medieval....., yes I suppose they are really. Amazing that the Navy disposed of them finally in two lots in 1978
I think that is in general, I only know of it from Jane's Firearms Recognition Guides and it's association with the MP18/MP28 series. It hasn't gotten a lot of glamorous showing in war films or other popular media, if it were the choice of "Chicago Gangsters" we would like see much more historical interest and knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
Many firearms fall into this category and only with the exposure of youtube, video games, and internet collections has recent awareness increased.
during the period it took to build 95,000 Lanchesters, about 4,000,000 Stens were manufactured and the Lanchester had a bit of a head start...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I like the experimental Navy tactical light.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9432C_Li-1.jpg
Pretty advanced for the day.
And the curved cocking handle too. The latter 'standardised' ones the Navy retained were simplified to the Nth degree
Thanks Peter. I hadn’t thought about the cocking handle. I have the simplified one. I will see if I can get my hands on an MP28 cocking handle.
I have a MK1 de-ac (old spec) Lanchester with the adjustable rear sight. There is an "S" on the mag housing for possibly Sterling manufacture??? It is in reasonable used condition apart from the fact that it has had the rear sight base welded to the receiver, even the fixing screws!!! It has obviously been like this for many years and I am not sure whether to leave well alone or try to remove the welds on the sight base. I notice that, below the woodwork, the trigger housing has also been welded to the receiver in place of the rivets or screws. Has any-one else seen Lanchesters "done-up" in this manner with a welding torch or knows if a particular organisation had a policy of doing this?
I think that the welds were done at Sterling. The A suffix on the serial number of Lanchesters that they are not fully strippable due to 'welded detail' which I take to mean the backsight and trigger mech housing. You could weld to a Lanchester casing - within reason - due to the wall thickness of the tube. It's massive! Not so with a Sten and Sterling as they distort too easily unless you make jigs to prevent it. Sterling perfected these heat-sink jigs during their production
As the custodian of a 1943 Sterling made MkI* I'm certainly interested. :thup:Amongst other things, I've accessorised it with a WWII RN Lanchester webbing set and WWII RN contract P1907 bayonet. It was the 21st birthday present from my father, so it's of significant sentimental value as well. Many years ago I borrowed a copy of 'The Guns of Dagenham' via inter-library loan and photocopied the Lanchester chapter. Yes, I'd love a copy of the actual book - but have you seen what they fetch these days..?:move eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Was there a problem with the sight base working loose/falling off? The person who welded my Lanchester sight base to the receiver has certainly not skimped on the quantity of weld in fact it looks like the welder is more use to welding ships or tanks together rather than small arms. It was this that made me wonder if the welding was carried out outside of the U.K..
It was probably the same welder who welded most of the Sten gun magazine housings. Could have been done abroad - or by a semi skilled woman o0n the night shift called-up for war work and set the amps too high on her stick welder
I've had a look at a few pictures on-line of the MP28 which the Lanchester SMG is supposed/said to be a direct copy of, if I have understood it correctly. The story that I read was that there was a MP28 captured early on in the war which gave the idea to the British to copy it. Looking at the pictures they do look very similar externally but I was wondering how similar they are internally? Perhaps they were just broadly made along the same lines??? Are there any Forum members who may happen to own a MP28 and would like to share some pictures of the internal working parts with us, please? Thanks for any info.
The Lanchester copies most of the MP28, with a few changes. Some of the internal parts are interchangeable, like the barrel. Some are very close, probably metric, and will work in the Lanchester after a little fitting. And some parts are completely different. The MP28 trigger and selector is mounted to the wood stock. The Lanchester FCG is attached to the body. The MP28 tripping lever works with the Lanchester FCG for repetition but the selectors are/were completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
What’s interesting to me is the increased rate of fire the Lanchester gets when I use a MP28 firing pin.
My Lanchester has F.L. above a possible ll marking on the butt close to the butt plate. I was wondering if any-one knew the significance of these markings, please? Could F.L. stand for Fleet??? Thanks
Ooooops, wrong answer! FL is Frederick Liebentruth as I recall who also made a lot of the wood fittings in the Titanic. I trust that the Titanic woodwork was better than some of their Lanchester offerings.........