Barrel length

[Daan Kemp]

I am curious how the barrel length of the no 1, no 4 and no 5 rifles was determined. It seems if a shorter barrel would have been just as good in the no 1 and no 4, except for entrenched resistance to change thinking.
I worked through Reynolds but couldn't find anything.
Anybody know or have an idea?

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

I have read that one of the requirements for a rifle and its bayonet at the end of the 1800's was that an Infantry soldier must be able to bayonet mounted Cavalry.

When the SMLE was designed as a compromise between an Infantry rifle and a carbine (upsetting everyone) but trying to standardise on manufacture and inventory, they had to design the 1907 'Sword bayonet' to be able to comply with the 'bayonet mounted cavalry' requirement.

Doesn't answer your question tho';.

[Mk VII]

More recoil, more muzzle blast and noise.

[Surpmil]

I would hazard a guess that harmonics, barrel vibration and "compensation" had something to do with it. Check the Textbook of Small Arms 1929

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Remember that the "SMLE" was adopted with the Patt, '03 bayonet; i.e., a re-jigged Patt '88 bayonet. Thus the "assembly" was shorter than the L.E rifle with Patt '88 attached.

This was deemed "too short" and the Patt '07 was introduced to increase "reach". The Patt '07, as originally introduced, is essentially a "clone" of the Japanese Type 30 bayonet, hooked quillon and all.

The idea of some Tommy bayoneting a cavalry horse that was being steered to run him down seems an example of a "final act of defiance". The impact of several hundred Kilograms of horse and rider striking the bayonet and rifle would be "interesting" to all concerned. A mortal wound from a Patt. '07 to the horse's heart would bring it down alright, probably on top of the "poker" and / or his neighbouring comrades.

Sir Hiram Maxims little toys should have put an instant end to cavalry in its traditional role. The French were still fielding Cuirassiers in late 1915; SHINY massed targets. The boffins invented the TANK and a handful of clever commanders developed combined-arms tactics in surprisingly short order. And then promptly went back to the "old ways" as soon as peace broke out.

Speaking of the French, take a look at the overall length of a Lebel or Berthier rifle with their "issue" pig-stickers. A whole lot less handy in a trench fight than a SMLE with either the '03 or '07 blades fitted. Then there were the assorted knives, clubs axes, sharpened entrenching tools and grenades that really made the difference when it got "up close and personal" in a trench raid.

[Daan Kemp]

IIRC barrel length was determined in 1900, bayonet length later. When generals with volley firing, massed and cavalry charges thinking were still alive and directing development.

Eg when transitioning from the SMLE/No 1 to No 1 Mk V/VI/no 4, barrel length certainly must have been considered.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Bear also in mind that 1n 1903, the standard ball ammo was Mk Vl and the experts spent a LOT of effort on weird barrel lapping regimes to try to get the muzzle velocity from the shorter SMLE back up to that of the L. E. rifles.

The advent of Mk Vll ball as a response to the German development of "S" ball with its lightweight spitzer bullet traveling at not much shy of 2900fps, threw lots of things out of the window. but picked up some bonus points: The Brits tried a "clone", of about 150grains weigh and, with a composite core. It lacked the required long-range performance in machine-guns, so they split the difference and the Mk Vll was born.

In the SMLE, they had a lighter rifle, firing ammo that produced less recoil and bore wear in a shorter barrel. The actual barrel length, 25.2 inches,did not change from the SMLE, through all the trials and into the No4 series, thus the trajectory with Mk Vll ammo was a known commodity. Obviously, the No 5 is shorter, lighter, noisier etc, but it wasn't developed on a wild whim, rather, as a perceived requirement for a rifle that was a bit more suitable for use in "jungles", and for vehicle crews and troops throwing themselves out of aircraft.. Besides all that, the advent of "fire and movement" with a section MG (Lewis, BREN) had altered tactical thinking greatly.

[GeeRam]

Obviously, the No 5 is shorter, lighter, noisier etc, but it wasn't developed on a wild whim, rather, as a perceived requirement for a rifle that was a bit more suitable for use in "jungles", and for vehicle crews and troops throwing themselves out of aircraft.. Besides all that, the advent of "fire and movement" with a section MG (Lewis, BREN) had altered tactical thinking greatly.

And the introduction in combat at the same time of the MP43/44 showed where the future was going to be with infantry battle rifles....which is why the No.5 got dropped as soon as they could.

[englishman_ca]

The long Lee had a barrel length of 30-1/4 inches, the cavalry carbine 20-3/4 inches.

The length of the Sht.LE being pretty close to half way between the two.

[Daan Kemp]

Makes sense for the later No, we know what we have, let's not fix what isn't broken. Still leaves the question of why that barrel length with the SMLE. Arbitrary half way between Long Lee and Carbine as Englishman proposes?

While on this topic, the P14 had a slightly longer barrel... ?