SMLE Yeomanry or Light Horse conversion.

[bigduke6]

Deleted till further notice

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.

[Jollygreenslugg]

Interesting. I don't want to be a naysayer, but something looks odd with the stamps on the nosecap, where the bayo boss used to be and the one on the new sling mount on the RHS of the buttstock. I can't see why they'd be stamped. Nor can I see why the bayo boss and mount would need to be removed, as they don't really impede the speed with which a rifle can be dropped into a saddle bucket.

I'm also trying to work out the Aussie connection. In 1915, we were in Egypt, training for the Gallipoli landings (and remained there for a bit) but Palestine? We were there in 1917, but not 1915. Was it meant to have been modified for Aussie use or by Aussies for others

How does the mount in the second last picture attach? Is it a scope mount, or something to do with mounting the rifle?

Cheers,
Matt

[bigduke6]

Mount come with the rifle, something to do with mounting it ?, the description was in the add so could be a mistake on the date, as for the conversion I dont know who did it or where.

[smellie]

The strange-looking mount is part of an aiming-cradle for teaching sighting of the rifle in Basic. They are also really good for displaying a rifle. Originaly, they were mounted on top of a tripod.

I can understand getting rid of the bayonet boss and lug. It would remove only an ounce or so of weight but it would streamline the rifle to a great extent. If it speeded up getting the thing OUT OF a scabbard would depend to a great extent on what type of scabbard you were using. The scabbards used in this part of the world would be halfway to impossible to use quickly and easily with a regular SMLE.

I note also that the Bridge, Charger has been removed from the rifle. Again, this would be clumsy when used with some types of scabbards. Also, the grasping grooves in the wood would give a better grip on the rifle.

What puzzles me is the location of the new sling bar and swivel on the right side of the rifle, although I suppose there was a valid reason.

It would be really nice to get a better look at that butt marking disc.

Nice rifle!

THREE known to exist? Not exactly the most common of brutes, that's for sure.

I like it.
.

[Jollygreenslugg]

No doubt the grooves are handy. Removing the charger bridge is a backward step which would be pointless, especially for a rifle which would need quick loading in service. The stamps still look suss to me.

I'd love to learn that it was fair dinkum.

Cheers,
Matt

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

No doubt the grooves are handy. Removing the charger bridge is a backward step which would be pointless, especially for a rifle which would need quick loading in service. The stamps still look suss to me.

I'd love to learn that it was fair dinkum.

Cheers,
Matt

[RJW NZ]

Those finger grooves are such an obvious good idea why on earth why they weren't on every enfield ever made I have no idea.

[Peter Laidler]

If I had to be brutally honest, I'd have to say that the bolt hole in the fore-end looks like it's been taken off an EY rifle. The nose cap looke to me like it's been done by the local butchers shop. A first year apprentice would have made a better job than that! The fore-end groove is an example of the old engineers saying '....with a hacksaw and cutting torch, anything is possible.........'. Only in this case. a half decent set of wood chisels. Steel butt marking discs were introduced .......... when? That front swivel looks like it's off a Thompson gun to me but any old swivel would probably look the same. As for the notion that any reasonably well thought out Army modification detail would sanction cutting away half the original upper sling loop (see picture 5), leaving the other half as a good hook, to get tangled up in, well, everything, is sheer lunacy. I'll stop here................

Sorry to be a bit of a killjoy Big Duke but I hope you didn't pay much for it. I'd say that my son could knock one up in the garden shed in an hour......... given a spare SMLE, a hacksaw, a rough file and a set of half decent chisels.

If this was an authorised UK or Australian sanctioned bubba, then the paperwork authority WILL exist

[Thunderbox]

I always found the "Light Horse" story behind these very dubious indeed.

Normal SMLES are perfectly fine for cavalry (and whole Divisions were equipped this way) - either slung or used from a bucket scabbard. I've tried it myself, using original equipment (RMP & RHA mounted units). The charger bridge in particular makes not the slightest difference to withdrawal from a scabbard, and its loss would have a significant detrimental impact on the combat use of the rifle. Lets not forget cavalry units were usually used as mobile infantry in both Palestine and the Western Front, and were expected to provide the same firepower as any other infantry.

To me, these modifications in fact resemble those on rifles to be issued to (unreliable) native troops - i.e. they have been deliberately partly de-milled by the deletion of the bayonet and charger bridge. I would guess that, if these rifles are any sort of semi-official modification - they were knocked up out of scrap parts in order to equip local levies or guards.

Some things on this particular rifle look fairly suspect in their own right. Can we have some close up shots of the volley sight plate, the Ishy screw, the finger grooves and the bolt number?

[TonyE]

I don't like the Enfield inspection stamp on the nosecap. It is in the wrong format and there is no crown. Also, if these were a Local Pattern in Palestine, how have they been inspected at Enfield?

Regards
TonyE

[Badger]

Just had a chance to view this post and look at the pics in the deleted archives ...

I also had them reviewed off-line by some very expert Enfield collectors, many of whom are also members of the Advisory Panel ...

It wasn't even a close call, with the unanimous consensus being that this piece is clearly a put-together fake with even the inspection stamps being forged.

So, bigduke6, it is highly recommended that if your purchased this item believing it to be authentic as claimed, then you should return it immediately for a full refund.

We're really sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but we all hope this helps you avoid any further disappointment. ...

You shouldn't feel bad or embarrassed at all. We've ALL been there at some time in our collecting careers. I should share in a separate post with you (and everyone) some of the horrible (and expensive) mistakes I've made and got stuck with, at a time when I never had access to some of the excellent Internet resources available today, as well as the many fine collectors who graciously share their knowledge nowadays with all of us.

Regards,
Doug (Badger)