Now what was it called again?

Been re reading some old files while chasing info for a member, Mainly pertaining to Factory Rifle Inspections.

Well, sometimes I confuse myself, but these buggers don't help.
So what exactly do we call the bit the barrel screws too, the boys at Enfield Lock call it the body. Well that's a fail in the dictionary.
Body, action gets a mention, "that portion of a firearm which houses and protects the breech mechanism.....often referred to as the body, erroneously called the action and called the receiver by the Americans."
The Aussies call it the block until finish machined, then the action until assembly is complete, then it becomes either the action or receiver depending on who writes the precis.

This also depends on what type of firearm it is.

PL would call it the bit wot holds the bolt thingy and the long bored handle screws too...got me buggered, why you blokes constantly call for the correct wording when even the blokes that made them can't get it right.:dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

o what exactly do we call the bit the barrel screws too, the boys at Enfield Lock call it the body.

---

I have always known it as the "action" but the manufacturers and the UK Military (notably Peter Laidler) call it the "Body"

Extracts from some of Peters 'articles'

But don’t get the impression that it was just barrels where the breeching up threads were slightly out of index. It was the rifle bodies too.

The rifle body is induction hardened at these points to a depth of .004 - .006" but we have found it deeper.

It's main use was as the final arbiter as to whether a body was worn out.

Well, according to Lithgow Drawing A.5688, "Layout of Rifle and Appurtenance Components" it is called "The Body", In the assembly sequence, it is component No. 2 (the barrel is No.1) The factory drawing , A-126 (1944 and superseding a 1915 edition) simply refers to the component in question as "Pce. No2 Body".

The "body" is eventually an assembly including parts numbered; 3.- Guide, Charger, Body and the three assembly rivets; 3A- Medium, 3B - Short and 3C - Long, AND the two tiny hardened pins, (Pce No. 53), Pin, Stop, Locking Bolt) that act as the detentes for the "Bolt, Locking", (safety lever).

The "assembled" body comes up as Pce No 342 and carries the additional "Vocab". Number of BB0595. that being the number assigned to a finished, assembled "body", complete with charger guide and the two tiny, hardened intended for assembly or as a spare.

In earlier parlance, dating back to the Snider and possibly earlier? , the piece that contained the "bolt" and which was attached to the barrel, was called the SHOE".

Those old codgers would probably look at you funny if you started talking about " receivers".

I call it a body, but I suppose as said it changes with context. Sometimes in some context, i.e. the logistics chain it was called (later in service) ‘The master component’. As long as it’s not blatantly wrong then I don’t see many trying to correct the term used.

Instruction to Armourers - Parts List shows it as a 'Body' and a 'Body Assembly'

Part number 26 (No1 Mk3)
Parts 2 & 14 (No 4)

I always call it the action but indeed the correct term is rifle body...

SAID Drawings.

Body and Body with Barrel.

"...the bit the barrel screws too..." Too means 'also'.
"...call it the "Body"..." The rest of the world calls it the receiver

The Specification to govern Manufacture and Inspection 1909 calls it the body as a breakdown of parts on page 1 and 4, but by page 6 para.16, "the barrel will be submitted with the action attached for proof" (….so now we have a component with other parts attached) but by para 18 reverts to body again(but no moving parts attached) para 20 and 21 deals with the gauging of the body complete with fixed parts, no bolt or sears. Para 47 calls it the body for checking markings, but by para 47. a. it calls it the action and refers to smooth operation of the bolt.

India Inspections list it as the body, but Lithgow calls it the body, but then the action when assembled and tested.

Instructions to the Lithgow Inspectorate call it the body, action when assembled as per the Brit. Precis, but a memo dated 1922 with F.E. Harts name, referring to changes in Inspections, para 5. calls it Receiver, as does para 6(field Armourers).


Now I'd give Hart the benefit of the doubt here, my understanding was that he was either at Enfield Lock or in transit, so it's possible this memo may have been produced by Ratcliffe the Manager, he was a yank. But it just goes to show that if you are referring to the recent forging, block would be correct, the body then would be the bare assembly, action would include bolt and moving parts.....receiver, well that's with magazine and feeding rounds I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

The Specification to govern Manufacture and Inspection 1909 calls it the body as a breakdown of parts on page 1 and 4, but by page 6 para.16, "the barrel will be submitted with the action attached for proof" (….so now we have a component with other parts attached) but by para 18 reverts to body again(but no moving parts attached) para 20 and 21 deals with the gauging of the body complete with fixed parts, no bolt or sears. Para 47 calls it the body for checking markings, but by para 47. a. it calls it the action and refers to smooth operation of the bolt.

India Inspections list it as the body, but Lithgow calls it the body, but then the action when assembled and tested.

Instructions to the Lithgow Inspectorate call it the body, action when assembled as per the Brit. Precis, but a memo dated 1922 with F.E. Harts name, referring to changes in Inspections, para 5. calls it Receiver, as does para 6(field Armourers).


Now I'd give Hart the benefit of the doubt here, my understanding was that he was either at Enfield Lock or in transit, so it's possible this memo may have been produced by Ratcliffe the Manager, he was a yank. But it just goes to show that if you are referring to the recent forging, block would be correct, the body then would be the bare assembly, action would include bolt and moving parts.....receiver, well that's with magazine and feeding rounds I guess.

---

By 1945 it appears to be the "Body Assembly" which consists of the "Body" and all it additional components.

The No4 had a "Body Mk1" which was for the No4 Mk1 rifle, and a "Body Mk2" which was for the No4 Mk1* rifle.

There was also Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 barrels (5-groove, 2-groove and 'fabricated')

I don't know where the author of your documents got his info from Alan. The No4 barrels are suffixed with the letter C as not supplied separately. NOT so, we used to order them 10 at a time! The two groovers were still available new in the 60's as they were obsolescent and not obsolete, like the Mk3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I don't know where the author of your documents got his info from Alan. The No4 barrels are suffixed with the letter C as not supplied separately. NOT so, we used to order them 10 at a time! The two groovers were still available new in the 60's as they were obsolescent and not obsolete, like the Mk3

---

It is this 1945 Manual - maybe the Aussies had a different system to the rest of the Commonwealth ?

Picking up on Alan and Muffet's seemingly different approaches, I'd suggest to those sitting on the sidelines, that this relevant and interesting discussion about exact inaccuracies demonstrates the essential requirement for all Enfielditis sufferers to eject two words from their vocabulary, permanently:

1. Always, and
2. Never

These two words can not be uttered with any confidence, relevance or accuracy when describing any aspect of the long and often confusing history of matters Lee Enfield.

And for the purists, let's be clear that this does include Rifles No 4, 5, 7 8 and 9 and the "L' series of 8, 39, 42 and Indian 2A.

:madsmile::eek::runaway:

I couldn't agree more.......I've been saying never say 'never' & never say 'always' in relation to Lee Enfields for years. Many inaccuracies in otherwise good books are because people have been too dogmatic about, say, precise production figures, markings & so on. Sometimes there's something to be said for a little fence sitting......'most examples so far encountered are marked.....', rather than 'they are always marked.....' There's always some smart aXX down the road just waiting to contradict you!

Tell me about it DRP. Maybe in Australia barrels weren't available as a separate part. But to be honest I don't ever recall seeing a No4 in the Australian military. except in a classroom in Bandiana for some reason - probably instructional purposes. Someone did say that there were a few in different places. It was so 'rare' that I even got a copy of the tech info relating the even stranger and rarer Mk1/2 and 1/3 versions.

But that apart, barrels were definately available.

There were certainly No4 rifles in Australian service during WW2. I doubt that numbers were ever high. They can be seen in several photographs of troops in New Guinea, for a start. These MAY have been rifles diverted after the fall of Singapore, but who knows for sure. In the normal scheme of things, having "odd' rifles in such a combat zone would have caused some logistical problems. My father the motor mechanic (artillery unit) stated that some turned up in his unit while they were in Townsville. MAYBE they were to be used in rear echelon locations to release "standard" No.1 rifles to the pointy end. If you trawl through photos from the Australian War Memorial collection, you will also spot the odd P-14T being carried by Australian troops in odd place, but those at least were officially on issue to infantry battalions.

In the same time-frame, the Japanese "adopted" a significant quantity of "slightly-used" .303 small arms, especially Bren and Vickers guns. .303 is IDENTICAL to the Japanese 7.7 Rimmed round as adopted by their NAVY (and hence their Naval infantry) as a machine-gun cartridge. How many "recycled" guns turned up at the front line is unknown, but it is more likely, and for the same "logistical / spare parts" reasons, they were used in training and garrison situations. Anyone ever seen any Japanese "user-manuals" for such things?

Probably overthinking this a bit, but as the machinery was yank, the Aussies did their initial training on using the equipment over there, some of the staff, including two managers were from there, then I'd expect some of their terminology filtered into our system as well.

Talking of Oz terminology, when I came back to England, even my mum and sister couldn't understand what I was talking about. Even today I put my strides on in the morning or feel a but crook occasionally and whn I'm down in the dumps a bit, I'm packin' a sad....... The even sadder bit is that when I go back............ it all just trips off the tongue like I never left!

Fair Dinkum Cobber :thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Fair Dinkum Cobber :thup:

---

Bruces Sketch - YouTube

Kevin 'bluddy' Wilson was one of my favourite Australians

Peter - The UK version of the parts list agrees with you (unsurprisingly !!)

Barrels were available separate to the body, but the body was not available without the barrel.

All British service bolt actions had a body with one exception that being the MkIII and IIIB Ross which had a receiver as stated in the list of changes.

No Alan....... The parts list is a list of parts. It is not a list of AVAILABLE parts. I might have misinterpreted what you said above (thread 22) but the body was not available with or without anything. It was the master component, the m/c. If for some strange reason you submitted an indent/demand for a body or m/c - from any weapon, the demand would come back with a snott-o-gram demanding an explanation.

As a bit of an aside, mistakes did happen occasionally and you'd get numbers of VAOS prefixes slightly wrong and you could end up with 10 bayonets instead of 10 pullthrough weights. Obviously a simple error of course....... But alas, not for a m/c. There was ONE exception to this rule. The body for the .50 short M8C spotting rifle was available as an accountable 1043A spare for technical reasons and the fact that the actual M8C's never actually belonged to the UK but were leased

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

No Alan....... The parts list is a list of parts. It is not a list of AVAILABLE parts. I might have misinterpreted what you said above (thread 22) but the body was not available with or without anything. It was the master component, the m/c. If for some strange reason you submitted an indent/demand for a body or m/c - from any weapon, the demand would come back with a snott-o-gram demanding an explanation.

---

You are confirming what I said "the body is not available as an individual item". To be supplied with the body you needed to requisition a 'complete body and barrel' (eg BB8556) assembly, but you could requisition a separate barrel (eg BB8557)

Lost in the translation Al. Those were old what we called Ordnance part numbers superseded by the MoS numbers starting with the VAOS code of B1 etc etc and then the NSN 13 figure numbers. Because of that, you had the strange situation where very old and obsolescent Mk5 Sten guns had some new NSN's for the butt plates, sling loops, foresights and protectors etc etc