Printable View
Hi all,
I came across a picture of troops training in 1938 with SMLE's, curious thing, on closer inspection, all the rifles have Flanders mud flaps fitted...
When were the flaps made obsolete?
Could it be that:
A,The picture is actually WW1, doesn't appear to be the case.
B,They are WW1 rifles from store, issued during the pre war expansion period, still fitted with flaps?
Opinions gents....
Also noticed, the far rifle does have the transitional forend, with the volley sight dish area in evidence, suggesting a 1916/17 production rifle.
That's either the indoor range or the classroom?
Note that the "trainer" is about to run a model train with targets downrange! Moving target practice. How often did they have to replace cars?
Bob
The near rifle looks to have had a neat patch over the site of the volley sight plate (the machining for the rear volley 'arm' is still evident). I suspect it may just have been a unit that had flaps to hand & so fitted them to aid in keeping the bores free of dust/muck. But even this wouldn't have been an ideal solution; the round dimple on the Flanders Flap is of a size intended to sit in the muzzle of a 303" calibre weapon, & these, on an indoor range, are likely to be No2 MkIV*'s....aren't they?..........Odd.
Working on a theory that I observed when teaching small arms under a SME from Warminster, the train wouldn't be shot. I see the sights are set at battle and should be set high if the small bore range was in use. The bullets go high. This is probably just learning to lead a target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
I would have guess too, but perhaps just classroom instruction on "Leading targets"? I'm sure they wouldn't fire fullbore inside a building like that one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
It does seem odd - I would not have though that a great number survived when records suggest that only 200,000 of the steel version were manufactured.
The 'Flanders Flap' were manufactured during 1915 by J. Purdey & Sons, A. Purdey, M. Myers & Son and Brandauer & Co.
Prices varied from 2 1/2d per 100 (or about 1p today, these were made from canvas) for 10,000 units from A. Purdey. 1/3d (6p) per 100 for 50,000 units of basic protectors from J. Purdey & Sons.
The sheet metal version War Office purchases were /|\ marked and bore the contractors name, these cost 10/- (50p) per 100 on 100,000 ordered from Brandauer and 8/-(40p) per 100 on 100,000 ordered from Myers.
The correct nomenclature was I believe "Protector, muzzle, No.3 Mark 1"
Tough to tell, but to me the cocking pieces look like the later No. 4 type. By this, note that all rifles are cocked and safeties are engaged.
Thanks for the feedback guys. So we have no reason to doubt the attributed 1938 date.
I seem to remember that the flaps were declared obsolete after WW1?
To me, this suggests a TA unit, they would have older rifles and flaps would possibly still be 'on a dusty shelf'.
It suggests a photographic opportunity with their full bore rifles.
I’ve never seen a train used this way before! I just assumed that it was to run the targets back and forth, don’t know how effective it would have been as a moving target drill given the short distance of an indoor range, relatively slow speed of the train and the speed of the bullet. My guess would be that there were sand bags to protect the cars so only the targets were visible. Being a train guy it was the first thing that I noticed. Way cool!
I don't think for a moment the train was used for moving target practice given that the sand & sky targets are for normal application practice; the amount of time lost on a miniature range changing targets along with having to clear rifles often takes up more time than actually firing them.
For those us with a nerdy interest the moving targets of the period would have been the reduced No.5, replaced the year after the picture was taken with the No.6 reduced target.
So, thoughts on the flaps guys, has anyone seen any other pictures of the flap in use post WW1?
I have a Mayers made example on my 1917 Enfield.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Well "sort of in use"
On my 'one of a kind' SMLE with parts from (almost) every continent.
They are probably using the horizon sighting method when shooting at the train.
The picture gets blurry when I try to expand it and I cannot see the rear sight close enough.
Same system used with the No.8 rifles
And I think the rifle closest to the camera also, and what is more something I have not seen before - what looks like a patch let into the forend to eliminate the recess for the long range dial sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Couple of photos of Flanders flaps i have seen posted of late
Attachment 118533
Attachment 118534
Very interesting indeed.
I had never seen the mud flaps and didn’t even know what they were. It took me a qhile to understand…
What a shame…:madsmile:
the train used as a quick way to change targets. Simple, quick and safe no body forward of the firing line. Wouldnt mind one of those flaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Service Dress and Service caps at that date might indicate that too, right?
Those other two photos are differently WWII period, interesting.
There are a lot of reproductions in Europe, there is a French company making them and a UK company having them made in the Phillipines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovidio
The UK company are honest in their descriptions (on ebay) and explain the markings are their names so as to identify them as reproductions.
The problem happens when the buyer then decides to sell his repro, and the "J&P" become an unknown WW1 manufacturer.
Here is their advert :
SMLE Cover "The Flanders Mud Flap" FF.01
A museum quality replica of this 1915 classic designed to keep water and mud out of the barrel
Copied from an original in every way with the exception of a couple of minor differences to prevent them from being sold as original.
Firstly we have stamped them with the makers name J&P (Jay & Paul) The originals did not have a makers name. Secondly we have finished them in a hard wearing matt black powder coat instead of the blackened oil finish of the originals. None of these changes detract the item from being ideal for re-enactors or as a perfect utility for any SMLE owner.
Our example will fit the majority, but should yours not fit correctly you will have to file a little off each end of the stabilising lug which fits into the foresight slot
It should be remembered that service dress and peaked caps were issued up until 1964 in boys regiments; having said that these lads look a bit older than 15 or 16.Quote:
Originally Posted by AD-4NA
Bob, the train and carriages were obscured down range, only the targets were exposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
This system was in use at Singleton in 1966/67 at 3RTB, but the system was upgraded to a full CINIE Range by the time I was back in 1970.
We too had the CINIE target range, was quite an improvement and decent training aid. Fire a shot, target freezes and a light exposes the strike on target.Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Firing the sub cal. for the Charlie Guts ache was always a challenge using the 6.5x55 indoor round.
Yes, long time since I did that.Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Sounds like fun guys....Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------
Many thanks for the pics, proving beyond doubt that the flaps saw service in the early part of WW2 at the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thBatt
It's reasonable to hypothesise in that case, that these were already attached to WW1 dated rifles, withdrawn from stores, or, perhaps more likely, older rifles allocated to War mobilised TA units in 1939.
Here's my example, it appears to be correct?? Bought about 6 years ago from World wide Arms and sourced by them from Nepal, as I recall...
It cost me £49 at the time.
If the group agree its an original, perhaps the pics could join the library as reference?
Nope its a Repro made in YorkshireQuote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
but has had a makers name stamped into it at a later stage ( in the last 10 years! these copies were not marked apart from the crows foot)
Enfield SMLE Flanders Flap Muzzle Cover | Repro
That's a pity........although the 'M Myers & Son' has been individually hand stamped, which is a bit of a warning........mass produced items would have had the markings rolled on in all likelihood.
Does anyone know if any of the originals were marked with just a broad arrow & were devoid of a maker's mark/logo? A collector that I know in Northern France, who has a track record of turning up much high quality stuff, had a piece of rust stained knotted string with six of them threaded on it, when I met him at a show about fifteen years ago. They had an old faded looking blued appearance &, as mentioned, bore no markings whatsoever, save for a small (smaller than in Mr Clark's example) broad arrow. They were priced at a figure that made them rather expensive if repro's (not that there was a glut of repro's then), but pretty fair if originals. IIRC he gave a story that they had turned up from the collection of a very old recently deceased local collector.....but I am well aware that one buys the item not the story. I know the very fact that he had six of them might suggest they must be copies, but they looked good, & I had dealt with him before & had never seen him passing off anything I could see was fake. I bought three, one for a friend, & two to keep. If I'd been totally confident that they were genuine I'd have bought the lot. I still don't know for sure one way or the other......worth a photo for the opinions of those in the know?
Hey, I only paid £50, so ho hum, it's a very good repro. Thanks for that info Andy.Quote:
Originally Posted by skiprat
Looks like someone was 'slightly economical' with the truth shall we say and had gone to some effort to add age, etc.
I never ever buy the story, the very first lesson all collectors learn, usually the hard way!
Come on down Roger, the price is right!
Love to see some pics, if yours is original, it would be interesting to compare to mine and perhaps place pics in the knowledge library. Detailed pics of originals are virtually non existent!
Here is my example
Attachment 118576
Attachment 118577
I honestly don't know if it is original (mine) but 5th Batt's looks to be, at least to me. It's very late here now & way past my bedtime, but I'll get a couple of photo's of one of mine tomorrow......
I have seen documents that have said they were maker unmarked, and have said they were maker marked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Both were non-original(MOD) documents, just collectors summaries ie :
The 'Flanders Flap' were manufactured during 1915 by J. Purdey & Sons, A. Purdey, M. Myers & Son and Brandauer & Co.
Prices varied from 2 1/2d per 100 (or about 1p today, these were made from canvas) for 10,000 units from A. Purdey. 1/3d (6p) per 100 for 50,000 units of basic protectors from J. Purdey & Sons. The sheet metal War Office purchases were /|\ marked and bore the contractors name, these cost 10/- (50p) per 100 on 100,000 orderd from Brandauer and 8/-(40p) per 100 on 100,000 orderd from Myers.
But after 100+ years has past and seemingly no documetary evidence (to date) who know what is original and what is fake, unless like this company you make noticeable (to collectors) differences :
SMLE Cover "The Flanders Mud Flap" FF.01
A museum quality replica of this 1915 classic designed to keep water and mud out of the barrel
Copied from an original in every way with the exception of a couple of minor differences to prevent them from being sold as original.
Firstly we have stamped them with the makers name J&P (Jay & Paul) The originals did not have a makers name. Secondly we have finished them in a hard wearing matt black powder coat instead of the blackened oil finish of the originals. None of these changes detract the item from being ideal for re-enactors or as a perfect utility for any SMLE owner.
Our example will fit the majority, but should yours not fit correctly you will have to file a little off each end of the stabilising lug which fits into the foresight slot. See Picture
I have seen both with and without manufacturers name, both allegedly 'originals'
(On the one fitted to the rifle the makers name is very very feint but is there)
I wonder if this was cleaned up what we'd see below the crud ?
Thanks 5thBatt, yours looks to be in excellent condition..Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thBatt
I’d never seen these before this tread. Makes sense given the horrific conditions of trench warfare but just wondering what happens if the rifle is fired with the door closed?
Think the date is correct John, uniform is pre 37 pattern, Train is a very elaborate target retrieval system system for a TA unit, but back then they were better equipped than the Modern TA unit so you never know........
Cap badge is quite distinctive but not all Fusiliers badges had a prominent plume as the ones in the pic, also The Royal Artillery wore there collar badge at times as a cap badge but not sure when this was, it was to with the size of the original badge.
The white washed wall reminds me of Grantham, the toilet in what is now the Laundrette still has pre WW2 Graffiti embedded in certain areas.
I'm sure that happened a lot. The flap blanks the sight picture, so you can't accidentally fire the rifle with it closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by baltimoreed
Though it would raise the pressure if fired closed a tad, it would simply blast off the flap, probably sheer off the bracket. After all, the added pressure would be nothing like firing a rifle grenade for instance.
Here is an original Flanders flap.
I have had it for about 50 years and there are two or three others that I cannot find,,but they are somewhere here!!!!
Just clean up the lenses and replace the post and cross hair.
Here are my two, as mentioned above. I took a speculative punt with a chap known to me at a French arms fair on the Somme fifteen or so years ago, but went into it knowing all the possibilities. It would be nice if the consensus said they were genuine, but I shan't cry into my beer if they are not.
Bitterly disappointed M&S means Myers & Son. I have been looking out for one in the hope that they were made by Marks & Spencers.......;)
Obvious fakes I'm afraid Roger, I'll take them both off your hands though....
They look good to me, a few more to add to the database. Many thanks for sharing Roger...
So experts, do Rogers and 5th Batts get a clean bill of health?
This is the text from the advert of one of the repro-sellers :Quote:
Originally Posted by baltimoreed
PLEASE NOTE; Although these covers would offer little resistance to a bullet and it is likely that in emergencies many rifles were fired with them in the closed position, they none-the-less pose a very real potential threat to safety should a live or blank round be fired through them in the closed position, in the form of either a deflected shot or the possibility that the cover would fracture and present a hazard from flying debris. It is therefore STRONGLY recommended that these are NOT fitted to live firing rifles. DS Solutions will not accept any liability under any circumstances should you choose to do so and ignore this warning advice..
I have heard of, but never seen the French Reproductions (the J&P ones are manufactured in the Phillipines) your pictures meet the description I have had of the French repros, particularly the crows foot which is 'wrong'Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Yes, I noticed that when I bought them Alan, but whilst it is supportive of them being 'wrong' I've seen plenty of indisputably original kit with appallingly stamped broad arrows, Enfield examiner's marks, & so on. If I had to jump one way or the other I would lean towards them being reproductions, but it would be nice to find someone who knows with a degree of certainty.
Under normal circumstances I see the French chap periodically & have done a couple of deals with him. When he saw my SMLE wire breaker that I had just picked up he almost dislocated my shoulder trying to prise it out of me! No doubt if I'd weakened he would soon have added another item to his range of products.
The easiest way to to tell is the last bit in the assembly, the spring......... the wire and diameter will tell the original from a fake..... always look outside the box.
Interesting Geoff, so what are we looking for with the wire mate?
---------- Post added at 01:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------
So.... Does anyone have clear close up images of definitive original examples?
How about 5th Batts example Alan, original, or in the Milsurps repro flap club too?
Attachment 118594Attachment 118593What makes me dubious about Roger's 'crows foot' is that all of the crows foot marking I have seen have had the 'toes' as single lines, whilst this one is like an outline drawing (two lines for each toe). Roger is far more experienced than I and will have seen 1000's more crows feet markings that I have - Roger -have you seen this marking used before ?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
I do not claim to be an expert on these things as I have not seen enough of them, or found documentary evidence, to be able to draw any conclusions.
However, mine was sold to me as original, and assuming it is then I'd suggest that so is 5thBatt's flap,
They are pretty much identical markings but on 5th's the crows-foot is not vertical - maybe the guy with the stamps was just in a rush to get out for a smoke break ?
5thBatt's Flap and my flap side by side and Rogers 'double line' crows foot.
Mine has a lightly struck "S" whilst 5th's has a lightly struck "M", possibly the stamp was not held completely flat during the striking ?
I have little doubt that both yours Alan, & 5th Batt's are genuine. There are various things to consider, not just the maker's mark or the broad arrow. It is very difficult to convincingly fake natural age. I'm less convinced about my own!
Morning John, back when they were made it was all imperial, so the spring wire and the mandrel it was formed on would be imperial too, probably very hard to tell but I would guess the spring would have more beef on it than a Modern replacement, also the hinge pin or even the gauge of steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Like anything repro or fake they all have a flaw or two,
Interesting stuff...
When I started this thread, it was to try to illuminate possible post WW1 use of the flaps.
We've moved on to adding some excellent reference material for a little known Enfield subject.
Identifying original examples, with clear images of repos is extremely useful for collectors and historians/ researchers.
Many thanks for all the input guys.
A side point re the flaps, I can certainly see an excellent use for them in the dusty conditions of the North African campaign.
Alan you can add Hinks Wells & Co (Birmingham) to that list; they were better known for manufacturing pen nibs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Apologies for the delay in posting these but my normal online album (Fototime) has disappeared following an internet outrage...whatever that is!
Attachment 118704Attachment 118705
Edited to add; I sold both the rifle & mud flap a few years ago, the mud flap appeared in an arms collecting magazine in a column called, "Smellie Bits" by the late Pete Bloom.
Thanks for adding to the examples Mick, much appreciated. We have a great repro and genuine selection in the thread now as reference, plus some excellent information. Invaluable for research.
Anyone counted the spring coils ? also look close at Mick's, 5th Batt and Alan's springs the gauge of the wire, Like I mentioned in a previous post more beef to them. Not a dead cert to an original but maybe a starter.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
I make it 23 on the originals Geoff, 28 on mine I think....
Certainly a thicker gauge wire used mate, another good indicator and top tip!
The thing that niggles me to a degree, is that people fake these up and pass them off as original .... I know, buyer beware and all that, but, I bought mine from a very well known and reputable UK dealer, who clearly gave me some made up snake oil bullsh*it to go with it for good measure!
Absolutely nothing wrong with a good repro, but when it's taken as far as mine, it's clearly meant to deceive.
Buyer beware I guess....
At £50, I've got a very good repro, that I'm more than happy with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
The 'problem' with discussing how to differentiate fakes / repros from originals is that we are telling the bad-guys to to make their fakes indistiguishable from the originals. Its a difficult balance to impart knowledge without giving away too much information.
I'll keep quiet on the wire diameter.
Mine is 22 1/2 coils on the spring. Who knows - maybe different manufacturers used slightly different springs ?
Probably a good idea Alan, But I'm guessing the market has been flooded now so probably not cost effective for the makers and the so called "reputable" dealers that John mentions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
I bought a Mk3 commando knife from such a dealer that was a gift for someone, Considering the dealer had been dealing in Militaria for many years, his online description was pure fantasy compared to the item that arrived it was absolutely appalling not even worth the postage stamp.
Covid has certainly helped these dealers punt out the crap that they know if it was on a table at a military fair they would have more chance of winning the Lottery than selling it.
But back to the mud flaps, there is something else that would identify a fake, but answers on a postcard please or PM me for details. An interesting thread though, just wonder about production dates and numbers, plus after WW2 did most get scrapped ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
I cannot find the documents I thought I had, but I'm pretty sure they were made obsolescent (not obsolete) after WW1
Obsolescent - will continue in use but will not be replaced when broken (basically in the process of becoming obsolete)
Obsolete - remove at first opportunity, no longer used.