I have been "touring" various areas of the site since joining the other day. Just starting to get the hang of how everything works (I think). I just read the thread concerning MKLicon entries and the concerns expressed by a potential valuable contributor on the topic of Arisakaicon's (of which I know nothing). Taking the advise offered there to start a general thread to discuss the content of an MKLicon entry, I felt I should do the same on the topic of a thread in the Englandicon MKL about the "1903 (or possibly 1902) No.1 Mk1 ShtLE (Short Lee-Enfield) Rifle".

My interest in Lee Enfields really started with being given a Short Lee Enfield Mk1***. Realising there was something different about the rifle from other ".303's", I set about finding out as much as I could so the restoration could be as authentic as possible. One thing that has haunted me ever since is the continued use of the term "No1 Mk1". People tell me that they are called that in reference books, and besides "we all know what we are talking about". I find this attitude towards fostering miss-information more than a little disturbing. Not knowing about what could be called an obscure fact and not being willing to learn about an obscure fact are two different things.

To this end I would like to point out that at the time of the changes to nomenclature for British service small arms on the 31st of May, 1926; for examples of the "Vocabulary"; the "Rifle, Short, MLE MkIII*" became the "Rifle, No1 MkIII*". The "Rifle, Short, .22 RF MkIV" became the "Rifle, No2 MkIV*" and so on.

The announcements go on to list several rifles as obsolete including, for eg; "Rifles, Charger-Loading, MLE"

To take things a little further, in typical British fashion of leaving no stone unturned, there was mention of "Those rifles omitted from Vocabulary but retained in store for possible future requirements were:"

Rifles, Short, MLE:-
Mark 1
Mark 1*
Mark 1***
Converted Mark II
Converted Mark II*
Converted Mark IV

Taking in this information, the "Rifle, Short, MLE Mk1" (and it's modified forms) were not only NOT given the "No1" tag, but were stated in the List Of Changes to be "omitted" from the vocabulary.

I leave this open for comment by all. Personally I feel that a source such as the Milsurp Knowledge Libraryicon, set up for information and education, cannot afford to perpetuate a mistake even if many people choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

Reference for information, The Lee-Enfield Story by Ian Skennertonicon (1993) - ISBN: 185367138X. Page 172.
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.