1917 LSA No I Mk III Aussie rifle?

[Bearclaw]

I have never seen Australia stamped like that is this common.

Myles

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.

[Anzac15]

Myles, have seen only two other LE's with 'Australia' like that. Both were straight up Lithgows.

[Anzac15]

Demo, there is not a date at the bottom of the forestock, and it certainly is unusual in that it retains the cutoff. This is an LSA receiver dated 1917, the war was at it's height, and little things like cutoffs had been pretty much done away with at this point. BUT (thats a big but..) I'm almost certain that I read that LSA did not build the NoI MkIII*, just stuck with the MkIII designation due to the fact that they built so few of them. Anyone heard this?
This is what history is all about!

[Sht_LE]

June 1940 Lithgow barrel, cool. Don't quote me because I maybe wrong, but I think the Australia stamp is an export or import stamp, as used in the 1950s but not entirely sure. I have a Australia inssued P.1907 bayonet (Wilkinson 1909 date) that has that same AUSTRAILIA stamp on the right grip.

[smellie]

@ Paul S.: The entire Ross Rifle story, as with anything Canadian with an awful pile of money running through it, is political to such an extent that one really requires a gas-mask when investigating it. I'll overlook the ammunition issue here (Canadian ammunition did NOT jam in the Ross but it also worked much too well in Vickers MGs to be allowed to rest with the Dominion forces) and the fact that the 1910 rifle never had a comprehensive troop trial: it was too new, only entering series production in 1912.

The Prime Minister of Canada from July 11, 1896 through to October 6, 1911 was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was a Liberal. Ths would be, to an American, much like having a Democrat President with a Democrat House for 15 years. This includes the entire period of the Boer War AND the entire period of trials, experiments, adoption and production of the early Ross Rifles. It was under this government that the Standing Small Arms Committee made demand after demand after demand on Ross, resulting in the bewildering variety of alterations made to the rifle in production. It was also in this period that the Mark III (aka the Model of 1910) was developed, tested and adopted.

Sir Robert Borden became Prime Minister on Laurier's leaving office and continued after the War. He was a Conservative. The American equivalent would be a Republican President with, of course, a Republican House, for our Prime Minister is the Leader of the majority party.

Sir Sam Hughes, who was Canada's Minister of Militia and Defence from October 10, 1911 through to October 12, 1916 (total of 5 years and 2 days) was an Orangeman and a lifelong Conservative.

About the only "cronyism" which can be charged would be that Sir Charles Ross (who designed and built rifles) and Sir Sam Hughes (who shot rifles) both were target-shooters although, to be entirely truthful, Hughes WAS most vocal in his praises and advocacy of the Ross Rifle. Politically, however, Hughes did not come into a position to do anything more than advocate until 10 years AFTER the initial adoption of the Ross.

The Ross had troubles, yes. Most of these troubles would have come to light, been exposed and corrected had there been rifles and time for an adequate troop trial prior to the outbreak of the War. But Canada's professional Army was utterly tiny at that time: more than 90% of the Canadian Army was composed of Militia units, many of which atended a Summer Militia Concentration every 2 years. When it came time for the 1914 SMC, the world already was falling apart. The vast new Army being put together for the Great War did its basic marksmanship training with the old Mark II Ross Rifle (which is why so many of the surviving rifles in this country have shot-out bores: the 20,000 delivered to the US had decent barrels), after which they were handed brand-new Mark III rifles which were being built while they were training. These new, untested rifles, were the ones they took overseas.

The problem is that the same, old, political tales and propaganda still are being repeated today. I talked with a number of Great War combat veterans who had actually USED the Ross in some of the worst fighting of any war, any time period, including the fabled Gas Attack at St. Julien on Apil 22/23, 1915. NOT ONE would say a thing AGAINST the Ross. The closest I got to a negative remark was a well-balanced and well-weighed statement from a decorated officer who was an experienced shooter prior to the War and who had worked his way up from Private to Captain. He said, "The Ross Rifle was unpopular due to its length and weight; you couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung. In our outfit we had NO troubles with the Ross Rifle, but then, we kept our equipment CLEAN, not like some regiments that never cleaned their equipment."

The problem is that people read books on a topic...... and then write new books on the topic..... repeating the same old lies until they BECOME the accepted truths.

And the Great War veterans are all gone, now, so it appears likely that the Ross Rifle will be damned eternally.

BTW, the problems with the Ross Rifle were investigated thoroughly at that time and subsquently. You can find the relevant information in "The Ross Rifle Story" as well as in the 40-or-so-volume Official History of "The Canadian Expeditionary Force in the Great War". I believe the information regarding the jamming problem with certain ammunition was in an Appendix to Volume 38, but I don't have a set here to check against. This particular Appendix has been published recently as a pamphlet and is available at gun shows for about $15.

I do hope this clears up some of the cronyism charge at least.
.

[Sht_LE]

I have also read that LSA stuck with the Mk.III and never made the Mk.III* without the cutoff. The rifles I have seen seem to confirm this. Anyone else have any more info on them? I do know that LSA made rifle are very hard to find in my area.
I do own one LSA made rifle. It is a Mk.III (it is milled for the cutoff) that is 1917 dated. While it shows no Australian property stamps or FTR marks I would bet it saw Australian service and was worked on by an Australian armourer. It has a 1919 dated Lithgow buttstock on it and a "new" Lithgow bolt and bolthead fitted (serial numbered to the rifle). Almost everything else is LSA marked.

[5thBatt]

I recently picked up a 1918 LSA MkIII* (no cutoff slot) here's the thread i started.
1918 LSA MkIII* 1915 Remington P'07 bayonet

[Sht_LE]

Thanks 5thBatt! Solid confirmation that LSA did make Mk.III*s. That info is much appreciated (Darn.... Now I will have to try and track one of those down) Lovely rifle BTW, the bayonet ain't to shabby either.

[Sht_LE]

Got curious and did a bit of research, thought I would share what I had found. LSA continued to produce the SMLE Mk.III (no volley sights but milled for the cutoff) into 1918. Approximately 50,000 SMLE Mk.III*s were made by LSA in 1918. So far the only observed serial number prefix seen to date on a LSA Mk.III* is P (I noticed 5thBatt's does have a P prefix).

[Paul S.]

Smellie and Buffdog,
Tah Gents. Thanks for your insights.

Being a "displaced" Aussie (an Aussie living in the U.S.) I'm quite familiar with parlimentary political wranglings. Our political parties and governments are similar.

I also remember reading something about the bloke who was the Minister of Militia, Sam Hughes, was the one who pushed the Ross rifle. My understanding was that Hughes bullied it through, and that Laurier was all too happy to have the Ross factory producing rifles - and jobs, in his Quebec constituency.

Military History is one of my little "passions" so things the "why" of some of it seeks its answer.