Navy issue No.4 MKI T

[Roger Payne]

A few months ago a friend & I bought two dozen nice SMLE's from one of the leading UK dealers. They had about a hundred or so & we did some cherry picking. The rifles were all from the batch recently released by the Italians from the Terni arsenal where they had been stored by the Italian Navy. I gather they were supplied by the UK to the Italians at or shortly after the end of WW2. I am speculating here, but I wonder if the transfer may have been Navy to Navy (ie RN to Italian Navy), as most of the Mk3's are retro-converted 1917 & 1918 Mk3*'s (I think the Naval unhappiness with the lack of a cut-off is well known), & many, though not all, bear the 'N with serif' marking on the L side of the butt socket as already discussed in this thread.

ATB

[Simon P]

A few months ago a friend & I bought two dozen nice SMLE's from one of the leading UK dealers. They had about a hundred or so & we did some cherry picking. The rifles were all from the batch recently released by the Italians from the Terni arsenal where they had been stored by the Italian Navy. I gather they were supplied by the UK to the Italians at or shortly after the end of WW2. I am speculating here, but I wonder if the transfer may have been Navy to Navy (ie RN to Italian Navy), as most of the Mk3's are retro-converted 1917 & 1918 Mk3*'s (I think the Naval unhappiness with the lack of a cut-off is well known), & many, though not all, bear the 'N with serif' marking on the L side of the butt socket as already discussed in this thread.

Roger I had quite a few SMLEs from the same source, quite a few had the N mark as well, some also had Canadian ownership marks on the receiver ring.

I examined some of the No4s out in italy, but the ones I saw never had any N marking.

When they were first released I spoke to the Italian wholesaler who told me they were originally supplied to Italy by Canada.

[Roger Payne]

Thanks Simon. I must admit I haven't looked at any of the SMLE's for Canadian marks but I'll check them. There were No4's available as well, & indeed all were Long Branch mfr. However, we only bought four as all were two groovers & no matter how much you tell people two groovers shoot fine the punters always seem to want five groove barrels; at least round my neck of the woods they do.

ATB

[Brian Dick]

Just for a break I took my favorite '42 Long Branch which did see FTR at CAL post war but still sports it's original 2 groove barrel and did some testing yesterday afternoon on my range. I put up blank typewriter paper targets at 25 yards with a 1" round paster on center and shot 3 rounds of Iraqi Mk.7, Greek Mk.7z, Portuguese Mk.7z and Yugoslavian Mk.8z. Guess what, they all printed under .50" in nice, tight little groups from 1" low on the paster to dead nuts. There is absolutely no difference in performance between a 2 and 5 groove barrel. If there was, they wouldn't have been adopted them in the first place. The proof is in the pudding.

[Peter Laidler]

You're dead right of course Brian. We even did student tests from the Enfield rest on the ballistic range. I've written it all up on the forum but like you say, you just can't tell some people. The grooves just impart stability into the projectile in flight. Nothing more and nothing less. (For the pedantic, that's not STRICTLY all it does but.........)

[Ridolpho]

Peter/Roger/Brian: If as accurate, why were the 2 groovers automatic rejects in the No. 4 T program? Were there concerns about longevity? Speaking out of ignorance, I would imagine there's quite a difference in relative areas of land vs groove in the two versions which you'd think would affect something- friction, blowby, etc? My most accurate LE is 2 groove Savage (No. 4T replica), my second most accurate is a '43 Longbranch with 6 groove barrel installed in the fifties.

Ridolpho

[Peter Laidler]

I won't go into the reason for the No4T/2 groovers again Ridolpho but put simply, the original spec for the No4T stated quite clearly that it had to be standard/spec of the No4 with the addition of......... and ...... And at the time, the No4 had a 5 groove barrel and a split foresight block. But we all know now that the spec changed - as did the No4T....., eventually. After trials proved that the 2 groove barrel.................... I won't go on!

[Surpmil]

The title page of the book describes him as "Late Chief Reconnaissance Officer, Canadian Army". That sounds like a WWII title, rather than WWI. At thepeerage.com he is stated to have commanded the "Canadian Corps Sniping School" from 1916 to 1918. His records state he was "seconded as Inst. Cdn. Corps School 9th Feb. '17 to 7th Jan. '19. He was a figure in the Yukon before WWI and joined the 50th Gordon Highlanders in Victoria, BC on Nov. 14th 1914. He went to France with the 48th Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force. So he served in the 50th Gordons when (Lt. Gen. Sir) Arthur Currie was the OC. He would have had to wind up his affairs in the Yukon and then find steamer transport south (not easy then). He was SOS Canadian Army, 31st May 1920. I'm guessing he might have been one of those WWI officers who came over to the UK with the Canadian Army in 1939-40 and were then weeded out as over-age in 1941-42. He was born in 1874 so he was already 40 years of age in 1914. The Royal Marines were probably glad to snap him up for instructional duties.