ShtLE MK v 1923

[bomar97]

Bomar 97,

Take a look at item number two of the Collectors Comments and Feedback section at the end of the article Badger recommended. There you will find photographs answering the first two points you raised.

The regular production run of some 20,000-odd, No. 1 Mk V rifles, ran from 1922-24, but, the actual Trials rifles were made several years before that period. The confusion stems from those that erroneously insist on calling this production run, "trials" rifles, in my opinion.

The photos mentioned will show that what you read is correct. The rear sights of the regular production run Mk V rifles went to 1400 yards, while the Trials rifle's rear sight was indeed calibrated to 1500 yards, the different position of the index line on the ladder of the Trials rifle accounting for difference.

Terry

Thank you. I never saw anything as to when the trial guns were made. It's clear that this one is indeed a production run.
I really am planning to get a pic up.. honest!

[Terry Hawker]

Thank you. I never saw anything as to when the trial guns were made. It's clear that this one is indeed a production run.
I really am planning to get a pic up.. honest!

bomar97,

Reading the sections on the Trials Mk V's in Skennerton's books is, admittedly, a bit confusing as to the dates and number of Mk III's so converted, but, if you take a magnifying glass to his photo comparing a Trials rifle to one from the production run, you will see the Trials rifle was made from a 1915 Mk III.

If you zoom in on the Trials rifle I referred you to at the end of the MKL article, you will see that rifle was also converted from a 1915 Enfield Mk III. (I really should retake those photos.) Examination of both sets of photos reveals more dings in the fore-end, as well as a missing rear aperture for the long-range dial sight on the rifle in Skennerton's photos, thus proving they are, indeed, different rifles.

At this point in time, these photos are of the only two examples of the Trials rifles known to exist, (don't even know if the Skennerton rifle still exists, as the photos were originally just credited, "Old Photographs..."), as even the old Pattern Room Collection doesn't have a specimen, but, the photos do tend to bolster my personal feeling that the Mk III rifles converted into Mk V Trials rifles were probably taken from those in production at the time, that is, in 1915 apparently.

Does anyone out there have another example we can use for corrobaration?

Terry

[Peter Laidler]

I think that I have clarified this point Terry. From our records at Warminster and the three original and untouched examples we have, there were two Mk5 projects. New build and conversion of existing stock. Could your pics have come from Warminster?

I often say that the Mk5 needs a full and detailed review/research. I'm too busy/uninterested but if anyone wants to come and do the research I'd point them in the right direction.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Speaking of No1 Mk5's....

Some years ago I saw a drawing at Lithgow showing the outline of the Mk V forging overlaid against a M3 receiver. If my notes are correct, it is "D4479" titled "Rifle, SMLE, Mk V/C"

I know that the various Commonwealth factories exchanged information on a regular basis, but does anyone know the scale of the Mk5 proposal?

Also It can it be entirely coincidental that the aperture sight for the Aust. No6 has a definite Mk5 influence?

[Terry Hawker]

Peter,

We touched on this subject before, and, at that time, I believe Warren and Paul got into the discussion as well, but first, could you please clarify something for me?

Are the three, untouched examples you have there at Warminster, actually Mk V Trials Rifles, or, are they examples from the regular production run? The common habit of those that really should know better, (present company excluded), in calling the 20,000-odd production run, "trials rifles", generates a ton of confusion, as it would seem to ignore those rifles in the developmental stages that preceeded the production run...That is, the true Trials Rifles.

The Trials Rifles have so many differences from the production rifles that there can be no mistaking the two models. According to the only two examples of Trials Rifles we have photos of so far, they were built on regular Enfield production, Sht L.E., Mk III receivers, made in 1915. The fore-ends are standard Mk III items also, including the long range sight dial plate, but with a Mk V-type rear handguard. The most obvious differences between the Trials Rifles and the production run rifles are the shape of the rear sight supporting block and the rear sight itself. As mentioned earlier, the rear sight is graduated to 1,400 yards on the production rifle, but 1,500 yards on the Trials. On the Trials Rifle in the MKL article, the rear sight has a tiny "5" stamped on the inside of the leaf, obviously suggesting that there were at least five of these sights made. This rifle also has a unique long range rear sight aperture arm, formed with a bend in the arm, to clear the equally unique, convex, fully-ribbed safety, (Bolt, locking). Referring to the previously mentioned MKL article photos will bring clarity on these differences.

As far as your point about the two Mk V projects is concerned, one for conversions of existing stock and another for "new builds", I have no doubt you are correct. I'm guessing that by making that statement you are implying that the two Trials Rifles are actually part of the project to convert existing stock. If so, I would have to ask, why are these two rifles so different from all the rest? Did this conversion project only create two rifles? If not where are all the rest? If these two rifles were part of a government conversion project, why do they still bear the markings of their first incarnation? A new model still stamped with an incorrect model number? Can't imagine that passing muster! No, I think you will find these two rifles are really as I said, real Trials Rifles.

On page 188 of Skennerton's "The Lee-Enfield", you will notice that Ian changed the caption of the comparison photos from the one he had in "The Lee-Enfield Story". Now the same photos, showing the Trials Rifle above the production model states, "Trials Mk V at top with eventual production model at bottom." Now the photo is credited to Reg Chapman. Whether that means it is Reg's photo, or his rifles, I have no idea.

As far as the "new build" Mk V's are concerned, I noticed on my production Mk V's, that in the right light, an outline of a round receiver can be seen at the rear of the action, leading me to a speculation, (later supported in that previous discussion by one of our much more knowledable collectors), that even the "new build" Mk V's were actually built up on new, but identical receivers, as the Mk III, (the process having been streamlined a bit since the Trials Rifles were converted.)

To answer your question, Peter, no my photos didn't come from Warminster. They came from my balcony. I think I could do a better job on the lighting now.

Thanks for bearing with me on this rather long post.

Best Regards,

Terry

[Peter Laidler]

Hi Terry, phew.................! So many questions, so little time and interest!As I said, this subject really needs to be looked at in depth. Our rifles are there for all to see as are the original trials reports. We have three untouched and therefore highly original Mk5's whereas those Mk5's out in the big wide world will have or COULD have been set about by owners in the past so immediately, the issue becomes clouded.

Why don't a few of you get together and come over. They're as original as you are likely to ever get

[bigduke6]

Hi Terry, phew.................! So many questions, so little time and interest!As I said, this subject really needs to be looked at in depth. Our rifles are there for all to see as are the original trials reports. We have three untouched and therefore highly original Mk5's whereas those Mk5's out in the big wide world will have or COULD have been set about by owners in the past so immediately, the issue becomes clouded.

Why don't a few of you get together and come over. They're as original as you are likely to ever get

Have been plannining to get to Warminster for sometime, Had a good oppertunity recently but due to being off work and having travel restrictions had to shelve it.

Back at work from yesterday, with a new medical certificate and restricted to coastal waters, As Warminster is within these, started the ball rolling by Knocking up a letter to the, Officer I C , Peter has advised in a past PM i will need security clearance ( Dont know if this has something to do with being a scouser) ?

I hope to get there within the next few months, if there is anyone interested in joining me please PM me, (many hands make light work).

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, big mistake big duke. Don't write to the 'curator' as we're not a museum but a military training centre with a small collection of weapons that we use occasionally as and when the need arises. It's just the Oi/c! But you're welcome

[Terry Hawker]

Hi Terry, phew.................! So many questions, so little time and interest!As I said, this subject really needs to be looked at in depth. Our rifles are there for all to see as are the original trials reports. We have three untouched and therefore highly original Mk5's whereas those Mk5's out in the big wide world will have or COULD have been set about by owners in the past so immediately, the issue becomes clouded.

Why don't a few of you get together and come over. They're as original as you are likely to ever get

Peter,

I realize you are quite busy, and, as you say, have little interest in the subject, so I will whittle my questions down to the one that should uncloud the issue quite a bit.

Could you please take a moment to see if the rear sights on your original, untouched Mk V's are graduated to 1,500 yards or 1,400 yards?

Thanks,

Terry

[Peter Laidler]

Not in for a few days Terry, but will do. Interestingly, the conversion from existing stockpiles at 18 shillings (as opposed to 21 shillings for a new build...) if I remember correctly clearly uses most of the original components such as the fore-end.

Would a few photos help? Leave it with me..........................