Lanchester

[Peter Laidler]

Maybe someone with a good photogenic Lanchester could put up a couple of portrait pictures of it like the L2A3/Mk4 file. It could start a bit of an interesting thread. While I was Tech Officer doing the trials of the xxxxxxx for the Navy, the Naval Ordnance trial overseer brought in for me to read the NOD-BR* for the Lanchester with some interesting (?) snippets of info. On the other hand, does anyone actually own a live Lanchester or a UK Dewat one
*Naval Ordnance Depot Book of Reference

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Vincent]

It’s not the most photogenic………… but it’s a sweetheart to shoot.

[mrclark303]

Thats a cracking example Vincent, I did have one on my shopping list, but unfortunately I doubt I will be able to procure one now, due to the changes.

The good news is many old spec deac Lanchesters made it onto the market and into collections over the years.

The thing I love about the Lanchester is how they wear their history, with sold out of service arrows (never seen them on a sten?), foreign ownership markings etc

[Peter Laidler]

The NOD booklet/pamphlet dated 1959, issued to Naval Armaments Depots was pretty basic and written in usual stuffy Naval type language. It did mention to Ordnance Officers that the Lanchester would be the mainstay of the Royal Navy due to its availability within the service and all that stuff. So presumably the Navy would not adopt the Sten Gun.

In an effort to standardise the Lanchesters across the board it was suggested to Ordnance Officers that no standard Lanchesters be utilised in future ship disposals. From this I read it to mean that where ships were due to be sold as a complete unit, then the SMG's required to complete the ships equipment should be serviceable but of the non standard type*. The variables likely to be encountered were the obsolete Mk1 and another 'troublesome' variant with a pressed magazine housing that was prone to looseness. The only sight to remain in service was the standard mulit aperture variation ( no...., it's a twin flip-overleaf surely?). So the adjustable sight shown on Vinces was deemed non-standard. They also mentioned composite trigger housings - which I presume to mean the later welded-on trigger mech housings.

No time or opportunity to copy the pamphlet but I did take rough notes. These later Lanchesters were pretty much what we encountered from the Aust, NZ and RN in the Base Workshops. They all seemed to be the later all-welded detail with flip-over sights and heavy cast mag housings. Never noticed a true Mk1 type. Mind you, at the time - late 60's - I didn't know a Mk1 existed! Some of the butt/fore-ends were dire quality but easily patched

Someone else must have one or two.
* The 2x Lanchesters shown by Vince and Claven2, with the tangent sights are the later non-standard type which would seem to indicate they versions sold off or otherwise disposed of early on, while the fixed flip-over sight type remained in Naval service

[Lee Enfield]

https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...-Submachinegun

British Lanchester Mk1 Submachinegun

[Peter Laidler]

A couple of interesting points to note. Photo 9 shows the early method of securing the barrel to the casing using an enlarged screw head recessed into an arc machined out of the casing. This indicates an early gun. This method of retention proved useless because on each shot, the barrel tried to rotate against the direction of the rifling. The retaining screw continued to simply batter itself against the crescent recess. The later method with the shaft of a bolt located at the top front of the magazine housing proved far superior.

Something VERY interesting and shown in pictures 25 and 25 illustrates to the keen eye just how early this Lanchester is. The trigger mechanism is a Mk1 trigger mech that will give semi and auto fire. Illustrated by the recessed trigger bar extension (item 2, illustration 9, P.9 TGOD) that has been welded closed to the trigger bar (1) to give auto fire only. Are you there Claven? Could this gun be a future project to revert to its original Mk1 Auto/Semi auto fire status.

We're not in a position to see the front of the trigger mech housing to see whether the hole for the original change lever (7) could be fitted. Also interesting is the fact that this trigger mech housing box still has the screw holes indicating that it was made with a view to be screwed to the main casing. But welded on during manufacture. A very early gun started as a Mk1, using Mk1 parts but completed as a Mk1*

Incidentally, it was Lanchester who designed the crown/planet wheel type differential used in all(?) axles now

[Vincent]

It’s strange how the Mk1 Lanchester trigger selector mechanism didn’t work out. It’s an adaptation of the MP28 selector mechanism and it works really well in that SMG.

I have a Mk1 mechanism that is only missing the selector. The MP28 hinged tripping lever fits it perfectly. It’s funny how some MP28 parts fit the Lanchester, like the barrel for example, and others are close but don’t fit, like the firing pin. I had to turn a MP28 firing pin down a little to get it to fit into the Lanchester breech block.

The Lanchester Mk1 tangent sight was not mounted very well to the tube. I can see where it would have become troublesome in service. The MP28 sight it was copied from is silver soldered to the tube and seems well attached.

[Peter Laidler]

Is the trigger mech you mention welded up Vince? Is it worth un-sticking it and maybe making a selector? Nice to see it out in real life.

The reason for the early change was that the trigger mech parts were all sub contracted out. The system for that sort of production wasn't streamlined and caused severe bottlenecks. The CISA told Cheshunt (the relocated DD(E) office) to get it simplified which they did.

There's clearly not a lot of collector interest in the Lanchester. Certainly not as much as I thought there'd be.

[Lee Enfield]

Is the trigger mech you mention welded up Vince? Is it worth un-sticking it and maybe making a selector? Nice to see it out in real life.

The reason for the early change was that the trigger mech parts were all sub contracted out. The system for that sort of production wasn't streamlined and caused severe bottlenecks. The CISA told Cheshunt (the relocated DD(E) office) to get it simplified which they did.

There's clearly not a lot of collector interest in the Lanchester. Certainly not as much as I thought there'd be.

during the period it took to build 95,000 Lanchesters, about 4,000,000 Stens were manufactured and the Lanchester had a bit of a head start...

[peregrinvs]

There's clearly not a lot of collector interest in the Lanchester. Certainly not as much as I thought there'd be.

As the custodian of a 1943 Sterling made MkI* I'm certainly interested. Amongst other things, I've accessorised it with a WWII RN Lanchester webbing set and WWII RN contract P1907 bayonet. It was the 21st birthday present from my father, so it's of significant sentimental value as well. Many years ago I borrowed a copy of 'The Guns of Dagenham' via inter-library loan and photocopied the Lanchester chapter. Yes, I'd love a copy of the actual book - but have you seen what they fetch these days..?