Wartime No5 Cleaning kit brush?

Does anyone know when the small black plastic handled cleaning brush, found in No5/SLR cleaning kits, first came out, please? Were only wood handled brushes found in the No5 rifle cleaning kit during WW2 with the black plastic handle version coming out post WW2? Or did the black plastic handled version actually come out during WW2? I suspect that only the wood handled version of the brush was available during WW2 but I don't really know one way or the other? I ask this question because I have found the black plastic handled version of the brush in Wartime No5 rifle cleaning kits but these could have been later replacements. I do realise that there was also a later grey plastic handled version of the brush found in SLR cleaning kits.

Many thanks.

We always understood that the wood handle ones were issued for the tropics because the insect repellent simply melted the plastic handles and by the time you had brushed the sights clean the handle had stuck to your hands. The insect repellent was made by a chemical firm in Jockland called BAOchem. In Oz, we said it stood for Britains Agent Orange. To be honest, the blanket stackers at Ordnance in Singapore didn't care what they sent out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

the insect repellent simply melted the plastic handles

---

Ours too. Very harsh stuff but I personally need to bathe in it as the biting insects affect me badly. I swell like a bee sting. The bug juice ate everything...dissolved it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

...the insect repellent simply melted the plastic handles...

---

I recall the evil liquid repellent was useful only for starting a wet hexamine tablet in the jungle as it was wonderfully flammable (or perhaps degreasing a transfer case access cover on a Series 3 Rover...?)

Anyone in their right mind that wished to be free of mozzies, leaches, midges, flies, bats, drop bears and spiders was sensible enough to buy and use commercially available repellent called RID.

I loved the stuff, saturate the cuffs of your greens trousers and shirts, kept all the creepy crawlies away....and after a week in the donga without a change of clothes, no worries about washing when you got back to base.
Straight to the Q for a reissue as the ones you were wearing just fell apart at the seams.

Also great for removing texta marks off maps and other bits that shouldn't have been scribbled on.

Some really good answers guys but the question was about the issue date of the brushes not that the plastic ones dissolved in insect repellent, can anyone answer the original question.:madsmile:

I'm going to hazard a guess at wood originally with the No5 cleaning kits, as modern plastics (especially of the deet melting variety) weren't widely available until the 1950's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

weren't widely available until the 1950's.

---

Jeez this makes Muff older than dirt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22SqnRAE

for starting a wet hexamine tablet in the jungle

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

for removing texta marks off maps

---

I had forgotten that stuff...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

the issue date of the brushes

---

My thought is...DID they actually issue a cleaning kit for the #5 carbine? I wouldn't have thought so and have never heard of it until this thread. Is this conjecture or did they?

Good point Jim, surely the No4 kit worked for both, seems like pointless duplication considering Wartime austerity.

The No4 rifle had/had provision for an oil bottle and pull-through stored in the butt.

My understanding was that the cleaning kit, in the tin, was originally intended for the No5 rifle because there was no provision in the butt of the No5 rifle for storing the oil bottle and pull-through.

So are we saying that the cleaning kit in the tobacco style tin was originally intended for the No4 rifle, not the No5 rifle?

It does seem like pointless
(and expensive) duplication of effort though F10, someone must know the chapter and verse on this?

There was no insect repellent in the known universe that would keep Aussie based midges amd mossies based around the Caungra area/Shoalwater bay away from me. They made an automatic beeline for me.

The trouble with the old, quaint notion of a pullthrough and oil bottle in the butt was a farce. Oil bottle and pullthgrough, yes but where do you keep the gauze and other bits? Yep....., in the Bren wallet. So just keep the rest of the section cleaning kit there - or if you haven't got a Bren section, the tin tucked into your pouches. One per man, problem solved

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

It does seem like pointless
(and expensive) duplication of effort though F10, someone must know the chapter and verse on this?

---

I think that we are referring to the same thing, just by a different name.

Interestingly, one of the cleaning kit tins that I have is dated 1973, has a NSN on the base but still has a holder for gauze on the inside of the lid.

I'd hazard a guess at 1958/59, they seemed to arrive with the L1A1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

The No4 rifle had/had provision for an oil bottle and pull-through stored in the butt

---

Good point, no such provision for the #5. I think, if it was me...I'd just hand the pullthrough and oil bottle to the troop along with sling, bayonet and tell him to move on. Not find some sort of tobacco can to put it in for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

they seemed to arrive with the L1A1

---

That was my thought, the little brushes are related to FN, from the Belgians...

Here are 2 of what I refer to as "No5 rifle cleaning kits" because they both have provision for storage of steel gauze in the holder attached to the inside of the lid. My assumption is that the first one dates to WW2 because it appears to have a wartime dispersal code of M617 printed on the base, on the inside. The second tin, last 2 pics, still has the same gauze holder but is dated 1973 and has a NSN stamped on the outside of the base. I have not seen a newer (dated) tin of this style (tabasco) that still has the gauze holder attached to the inside lid. The 2nd tin has apparently been used with the SLR, one would assume, because of the combination tool. I have left the contents of this kit as it came to me.

The similar tins that were made with no provision for gauze storage and also the tins that have had the gauze storage removed, I refer to SLR cleaning kit tins. That is unless the tin is marked, on the outside of the lid, "SMG" and in these instances, I refer to the cleaning kit tin as a "SMG cleaning kit", for obvious reasons.

You needed to differentiate between the tins so that someone didn't end up with a 303/SMG pullthrough, which won't work in an SLR, also they would deficient of the tool. So they would often be marked on the outside.

The crooks-and-nannies brush was overwhelmingly nylon by the 1980s but you still found the odd wooden one - I've got one here which somebody dropped on the range 30 years ago (gear adrift, must be a gift ...)

The steel brush in the SLR kit is a fantastic bit of kit for the initial clean of heavily corroded barrels, used in conjunction with gun oil, it really engages with the grooves and shifts the crap a treat...

Thanks for posting the three kits F10, good to have all three kits clearly photographed.

I will start a separate thread specifically on SLR cleaning kits soon when I have photographed some examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

The crooks-and-nannies brush was overwhelmingly nylon by the 1980s but you still found the odd wooden one - I've got one here which somebody dropped on the range 30 years ago (gear adrift, must be a gift ...)

---

Ironically the LERA club secretary handed me a follower, spring and base plate of an SA80 magazine picked up in the Sandhurst area last week!

I'm a bit puzzled as to why a .303 pullthrough won't work in a 762! Or am I missing something?

Because the weight is too large to pass through the little hole at the back of the gas cylinder. Just as well, because if it does (because somebody put an SLR pullthrough weight on it) once you have pulled your bit-of-rag-on-the-lower-loop in, the free end is now too short to pull it back out again.



Don't ask how I know this.

I have measured 4 weights in total, 2 weights with the angled end, on SLR pull-throughs and 2 weights from .303 pull-throughs, one brass and the other steel with a micrometer. Of the 4 samples measured, I have found that the 2X .303 weights are between .018" and .020" larger diameter than the 2X SLR weights.

Nope......., still a bit perplexed. So for the L1 barrel, the 303 pullthrough is OK - as we all know. That's because...... anyway. But for the gas cylinder the .303 pullthrough is a no-no. That's strange because the original kits were simply 303 kits with the addition of the comb tool and brush and we would STILL find old brass and steel weights in the L1 tins. NO gauze was to be used on the L1 as I recall. The only instructions I recall, issued later, relating to using the old 303 pullthrough on the L1 gas cylinder was in the military training syllabus and that was to ensure that the knotted end of the pullthrough should be FULLY enclosed within the weight (no loose pieces of knot or string exposed) that would restrict its passage through the gas cylinder. And the pullthrough could only be passed down from the gas block to the body end and not the other way.

Mind you, crunchies being crunchies, if you could put insert the pullthrough the body end of the gas cylinder and try to pull a piece of flannelette through from the body to gas cylinder end, then they would try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

if you could put insert the pullthrough the body end of the gas cylinder and try to pull a piece of flannelette through from the body to gas cylinder end, then they would try.

---

To be fair Peter, they taught us that very thing in basic. Tie a flannel in the center of the pullthrough and draw it back and forth to clean to an end. You were supposed to use a rod with .45 cal Parker Hale brush but that was the section LAR kit. Yes, some guys got things stuck. That's another chapter.

I could write a book about things stuck in barrels. But an even BETTER book about the antics of the blokes attempts to get the even greater amount of stuck stuff out again before they just HAD to come down to the QM's department and into the Armourers, hoping that the QM or the CQMS/RQMS didn't ask why. Nails, bits of straightened wire coat hanger, filling the open end of the barrel with petrol from the MT sheds and setting fire to the barrel............. And attempts to shoot it out with blank and ball. If it all came good that was fine by me. Just a few beers later or the usual tea/coffee/sugar and milk stolen from the fitters and turners

"And attempts to shoot it out with blank and ball"

I would imagine you couldn't turn a blind eye to that one Peter!

There's stupid and then there's stupid bordering on insane!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I could write a book about things stuck in barrels. But an even BETTER book about the antics of the blokes attempts to get the even greater amount of stuck stuff out again before they just HAD to come down to the QM's department and into the Armourers, hoping that the QM or the CQMS/RQMS didn't ask why. Nails, bits of straightened wire coat hanger, filling the open end of the barrel with petrol from the MT sheds and setting fire to the barrel............. And attempts to shoot it out with blank and ball. If it all came good that was fine by me. Just a few beers later or the usual tea/coffee/sugar and milk stolen from the fitters and turners

---

Some 50 years have elapsed since I and three others were guilty of this offence, I should add though that it wasn't a rifle we had something stuck in the barrel of but a 105mm Abbott SP!

We had been part of the yearly Warminster fire demonstration complete with Phantom jets firing rockets directly over our heads and Chieftain tanks in support of ground troops. The reason why we ended up with one up the spout alludes me after all this time but we were told to unload.
Unloading a rifle holds no mysteries but to unload a gun howitzer which had the shell rammed by hydraulics is a little bit more difficult, however the solution is fairly straight forward, you use an item of equipment called, an ejectors projectile. This piece of kit attaches onto the muzzle brake and allows you to screw and put pressure onto the shell to push it out.
Very straight forward to use and the scale of issue from memory was one per troop (3 guns) the problem being even though we had a full compliment of 6 guns on the position nobody knew where they were.

We decided that with the aid of some cardboard ring packing from the ammunition we could knock it out with the cleaning rods and brush attached to the end, the gun No.1 (sergeant) was concerned about damaging the shell so more cardboard rings were place on the end of the barrel brush and shoved down.
After the best part of an hour and being the last vehicle on the demonstration ground we finally gave up. The Battery commander who had returned when hearing our plight but not witnessing out attempts to get the shell out managed to get the range opened so we could fire the round.
All three of us in the gun compartment looked white as the order to engage a lone Saracen on the crest of the hill was given.
I can remember crossing myself and I'm not even of the catholic faith but thought it might do some good, was it possible for the round to premature on this occasion?
We were bricking ourselves in case there was a problem but everybody from the No.1 down to the gun loader (me) didn't have the balls to say what we had done with the packing that was now compressed onto the HE shell.

The command fire was given and the gun layer whose sense of humour was always present turned and said, nice knowing you all.
The gun fired and the relief could be seen in our faces, shortly afterwards the hatch at the back opened and the BC poked his head in and said, Sgt Buckingham I don't know what happened there but that round fell 300 metres short of the target!

No CO's charges, no courts martial and we lived to fight another day, after that we made sure we were the gun that had the ejectors projectile in the side cage of the gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

shoved down

---

I like the use of technical language. :thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

"And attempts to shoot it out with blank and ball"

---

That was my first exposure to a stuck pullthrough...we had lots of reservists to give lots of bad info to recruits when I started. So when I got my pal's pullthrough stuck in the barrel, I immediately took it to my section commander. Since we were in the field, he managed to hammer a blank in after it and fired it out...towards the front of the defensive position. He was a full Sargent... Rifle survived...

That's hilarious Mick, I wonder what the breech pressure was on your Howitzer.....

---------- Post added at 02:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

That was my first exposure to a stuck pullthrough...we had lots of reservists to give lots of bad info to recruits when I started. So when I got my pal's pullthrough stuck in the barrel, I immediately took it to my section commander. Since we were in the field, he managed to hammer a blank in after it and fired it out...towards the front of the defensive position. He was a full Sargent... Rifle survived,

I wonder how the C1 headspaced after spitting out a pull through Jim, size up locking shoulder perhaps!

The only jamming incident I have seen, that led to a catastrophic failure was a chap in my rifle club many years ago, who had accidentally jammed a Jag and cloth in the barrel of his .22 bolt target rifle and forgotten about it, (can't remember the make), first round stopped behind it, second round sheared the bolt and made one almighty bang, he escaped serious injury, but it wrecked the rifle.

I remember running out to the firing points of our underground range after the 'boom', the poor chap was wondering about in shock, rifle still in hand, with blast marks on his face and the smell of burnt hair hanging in the air.

Respect for the humble .22lr round firmly imprinted on my young mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

I wonder how the C1 headspaced after

---

Don't know, it would have gone through normal inspection after the course or at least during annual...(ATI)...I later broke the ejector as I recall so there's a chance at course end to sort it. It was right at the course end too...

Here is a drawing of the brush which I came across in my files, dated 1944 but revised several times.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...12/large-1.jpg

As a late extra on this question, I have come across this 1944 List of Changes announcement for the brush, which notes that several alternative patterns were authorised, even then.



https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....79&cid=1&stc=1

What other alternatives were there?

The drawing makes reference to hardwood or acetate, bristle or nylon for the 'bristles' - I would guess that they were contractor's alternatives even at this early date.

The obvious alternative to a handle made of wood or plastic is one made of rolled tin plate but has anyone actually seen one? I've seen small brushes with rolled steel handles before but not for this application.