Originally Posted by
englishman_ca
Ya, some coincidences with the barrels.
The cavalry carbine was a lightened arm for the horse soldier. The lightweight barrel was slender but fully protected by stock, hand guard and nose cap. Introduced 1894.
Introduced nine years later in 1903, the muzzle diameter on the Sht.LE is much the same as the slender carbine barrel. Take a carbine barrel and stretch it by 4-1/2 inches and you have an SMLE barrel. Coincidentally also protected by a stock, hand guard and nose cap.
Then the black magic with the barrel harmonics to get the Sht.LE to shoot and compensate. Spring loaded inner center band, then a spring loaded centering shoe in the nose cap. The long Lee had none of that, just a heavy stiff barrel.
The heavy barrel created for competition use with the SMLE is basically a long Lee barrel shortened. Which coincidentally would be the same as the No.4 barrel. Eeek! Coincidentally, the barrel diameters and taper on the No.4 rifle is pretty much the same as that of a cut down long Lee.
What does all this mean? I have no idea. Just Enfield minutia.
But methinks that Enfield had some of the best engineers and designers of the time. The more I delve into what sometimes seems insignificant details, I recognize and appreciate some very clever work. The evolution of all things mechanical, materials and manufacturing processes of that time I find fascinating.