Printable View
In researching surviving papers from the London Small Arms Co. recently I came across the following for Sht L.E. barrels -
order received from MM [Ministry of Munitions] for 1000 ea. Rectangle and [Rectangle-with-a-R-inside]barrels for repair purposes at 12/6d and 9/6d respectively, the prices having been agreed with BSA.
Anyone observed a barrel with these markings? There must have been a reason for the differential in price.
Possibly bought from BSA on the quiet and resold to the Ministry? Or was the agreement with BSA just a little polite price-fixing?
The papers clearly show they were in a price-fixing ring with BSA, with regular consultations on the prices to be quoted for even quite trivial items. Such arrangements were probably not illegal, at the time. But I don't think they bought these from them, or the minutes book would have said so. They did earlier [1915] get permission to supply rifles with second-grade imperfect barrels to the War Office (price reduced by 2/- in consequence) and BSA said they did not approve of this arrangement (though they later followed suit)
It was a lovely war for bankers, directors, shareholders and profiteers.
One could read about it for hours: Have Britain's WWI debts been repaid? - Google Search
A friend has now provided a list of stamps used by the Ministry of Munitions where these marks appearhttps://www.milsurps.com/attachment....72&cid=1&stc=1
Sub-standard barrels, but, apparently still useable for repairs. In July 1918 the Ministry buys another 4000 Rectangle R barrels at 11/9d ea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
Is there any idication as to why 3 categories of 'non-standard' was needed, or, what the difference was between each category ?
In 1916 BSA were supplying completed SMLE at 75/-
11/9 seems to quite a high figure for a 'reject' (not to specification) barrel.
No, there's no further information (lucky to find this much, I think)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
Indeed - its just so tantalising that somewhere is a detailed explanation of who, why, what and when !
These marks were only for new barrels or also barrels salvaged from condemned rifles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
The "C" and "R" suggests the usual "cord-worn/cut" and "rusted" classifications.
No, they were for the Ministry's inspectors, not the Army's working in the field.
So it was explicit that these were defective, but new production rather than defective new and/or salvaged?
Slightly tangential, but bearing in mind the recent thread on the scrap and salvage campaigns in WWI and the vast numbers of weapons recovered in various states of repair, is it known whether private industry was involved in the salvage and refurbishment of small arms?
By 1918 it may have been found cheaper and a better use of manpower to hand over some of that work to private industry: a soldier on the Continent requires to be housed, fed, clothed and cared for whereas a civilian employee of a private company involves such costs only indirectly. A man fit enough for service overseas is generally fit enough for some form of front line service and fit men were beginning to be in short supply by 1917, to say nothing of 1918.
I saw nothing to say these were salvage, the whole trend of it implied they were new.
The presentation did say that a commercial Limited company (owned by the MOD) was set up to undertake the salvage of fats, but no mention of boots, firearm's etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Without going back now and looking again, I feel pretty sure it was on a much wider basis than just fats, or "dripping" as they liked to describe it, but it wasn't made clear what exactly the company set up in 1918 was handling.
I cannot imagine that they would employ civilians to go and collect up scrap in the Front Lines, or No Mans Land and maybe, not even behind the lines, so I'd have thought that any military equipment would have to be collected by Soldiers.
Any waste 'back at barracks', or 'stations at home' could be easily handled by civilians without putting them at risk.
The historical pictures show that the rifle salvage seem to have been organised by the military.
The third picture is embarkation, leaving the rifles (presumambly) for incoming troops
WW1 Battlefield pick-ups
https://i.postimg.cc/k6YSFLBR/Battle-Field-Pickup.jpg
WW2 Battlefield pick-ups
https://i.postimg.cc/fJmKDTVH/WW2-Co...f-Enfields.jpg
WW2 Handing over rifles prior to embarkation
https://i.postimg.cc/vg4KzF3p/WW2-Troops-returning.jpg
Ive Seen these same markings on Commercial .455 MkV & MkVI Webley Revolvers taken in for Military Service during WWIQuote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
I would think you're correct that salvage in actual battle areas would have been done only by what we now call "combat troops" or by labour battalions, but in some cases I suspect there was an intention to keep labour battalions away from small arms and ammunition.
However, the handling and cleaning of salvaged rifles behind the battle areas was what I was referring to. You saw the reference to "oil baths" as the immediate treatment of salvaged rifles? Obviously the fastest and easiest, really the only way, to as far as possible arrest corrosion and decay on rifles that were wet, muddy and with probably mostly dirty barrels which would soon begin to corrode from primer residues if not cleaned properly. It would have been a bit of a race against time to clean such rifles before they became FTR cases. The methods of the time would have been very labour intensive and so it was the question of whether civilian labour under civilian control would have been used at any point in that process that I was getting at.
The second and third photos you show are Dunkirk disembarkation photos I suspect: both taken at the same time and place and the way most of the men are looking off and upwards suggests air attacks or activity at the time. The vessel they have presumably disembarked from appears to be a destroyer; not the usual transport vessel for troops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
I think that it may in fact be embarkation rather than disembarkation.
It looks to me as if they ready to board having handed in their rifles.
Armourers at work in Calais .................
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rkcalais-1.jpg
Armourers in their mobile workshop, behind Vimy Ridge May 1917
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...RidgeMay-1.jpg
Possibly, except that the men who are or appear to standing on the destroyer or the gangway(s) are all facing towards to the quay, as though getting off rather than on. Many do not seem to have rifles at all and that being so, one would expect such "spare" rifles to have been handed out to them for embarkation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Possibly the collection of rifles from men who had done exactly that: picked up loose weapons or weapons not actually issued to them and brought them back? Those who have rifles don't appear to be turning them in; perhaps their issue weapons?
Anyway, it seems pretty clear this was Dover Marine Docks from the roofs shown: Arrival of the Unknown Warrior at Dover Marine Railway Station at the Western Docks on 10 November, 1920 Stock Photo - Alamy
The apparent absence of officers or NCOs is interesting.
Why would they dump their rifles befor boarding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
it certainly does look to match Dover - great 'find'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Canada also made and refurbished a SH*T load of SMLE barrels during WW 2.
I will dig out the number
I have the number of new barrels manufactured but not the number of refurbished.
Cheers
I had one years back and sold it to a member here to do that very thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
speculating, but perhaps Chamber and Rifling as the out of spec issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
"Cone" might be another possibility.
They make reference (in 1915) to BSA selling the WO their accumulation of sub-standard bbls that run .305" in the bore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
With .305" being reject as per the 1916 drawing.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ions1916-1.jpg