"Sporterised" Lee-Enfields in WWII

[green]

Also notice the non reg bandolier.

[Ridolpho]

Attachment 79705

I've often wondered about this photo; AWM 013155.

Captioned as taken by Damien Parer, 28/8/42
Private H A Lake of 2/5 Independent Company.

Could be his own rifle which he has bought with him into service?

Exactly like the cut down forend on an "H-barrel" that I bought a couple of years ago. I replaced it with a new forend for the proper look but the H-barrels can be floated and work well.

Ridolpho

[CINDERS]

From the Australian War Museum (AWM) official site;
ID number 013155
Collection type Photograph
Object type Black & white - Film original negative nitrate other
Maker Parer, Damien Peter
Description PAPUA. 1942-08-28. INFORMAL OUTDOORS PORTRAIT OF TOUGH AND WIRY PRIVATE H.A. LAKE, ONE-TIME KANGAROO HUNTER, NOW A SNIPER WITH THE 2/5TH INDEPENDENT COMPANY. (NEGATIVE BY DAMIEN PARER)

Its just me but if I was a sniper the last thing I would want is anything that could possibly cause a glint from the sunlight the rounds and that nice long barrel poking out just begs for a bit of sunlight and having the rounds exposed to get covered in crud at least in a bandoleer they would be protected from the worst of the crud & cr*p. I hope H.A Lake survived the war.

[browningautorifle]

I find anything written on a picture difficult to believe, like what's written as gospel on the internet.

[Colonel Enfield]

Because people that have zero military experience want these romantic notions to be true. And the internet makes it worse. If a soldier had cut down his rifle or customized it in ANY way, as a Snr NCO I'd have danced him directly to the jail house. Do not pass go. I'd have done it on my own authority.

That's why I wanted to ask - because I know messing with Government Property tends to be frowned upon (to put it mildly) but I know they made a small number of "Official" experimental Jungle Carbines on the SMLE action so it struck me as likely that it wasn't outside the realms of possibility someone had taken an already damaged rifle and turned it into a sporter for use in jungle combat before that.

[muffett.2008]

Damien Parer was one of Australias top War Correspondents, the 2/5th Independent Company was one of the forerunner Units that became Commando Units post war.

[Richard Hare]

It says " Informal outdoors portrait" on HA Lake photo.

Do you think it possible that the photo was taken with props supplied by the photographer? (After all, we see British soldiers with photos taken in kilts, when we know at times they were not in kilted regiments)

I think the photo is fantastic though. Really brings out his features which are in themselves a study!

[5thBatt]

A lot of "target" rifles were handed back "for the duration" in WW2

I notice that the one in the AWM pic still has its magazine cutoff, despite these being officially "withdrawn" TWICE. First time was with the introduction of the No1 Mklll*.

Where does it say that in the LoC of 1916?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Well, obviously, the Mk111* was "sans cutoff" as part of its specification. Given the existence of Mk 111 rifles that have been "updated" and consequently "overstruck" with a "star", and the distinct scarcity of "intact" Mk 111s, there appears to have been some sort of concerted effort to "update" things over time.

Yes, I know that the " * " variant was supposed to be a temporary" relaxation / "economy measure" for the duration of WW1 and that, as soon as was possible after that time, "normal" production resumed. There are also surviving examples of Mk111* rifles that were "reverted" post WW1 by fitting all the "fruit" and striking-out the "star".

Lots of (Lithgow) bodies, marked from scratch as "111*" have the slot for the cutoff, whether they were assembled in the 1920s or the 1940s.

To further play around with the numbers, the prodigious wastage of rifles in BOTH World Wars seriously culled the herd of "representative pieces".

The British 1931 "Instruction For Armourers" refers to both Mk 111 AND Mk 111* rifles and contains instructions pertinent to both variants.

The 1945! edition of the Australian "Identification List" covers both the Mk 111 and Mk 111*.

The 1929 "Handbook of Small Arms seems to refer only to the Mk 111.

According to Skennerton, "The Lee Enfield", pp. 160-161:

"The Mark 111* Short Magazine Lee Enfield was officially approved on 2nd January 1916, but while the Mark 111* usually had no provision for the magazine cut-off, the omission of the cut-off was not necessarily intended to be a feature of the Mk 111*. "

There is also an extract from the British List of Changes; para 17622, which specifies what was allowable / required in the change to the Mk 111* variant.

"British List of Changes, Para 17622.
Rifle-short, M.L.E., Mark III.
1. Modifications.
Rifle, Short M.L.E., Mark III*, without cut-off.
2. Introduction.
1. In future manufacture, rifles of the above mentioned pattern may embody any of the following modifications:

(a) The omission of long range sights (dial and aperture) from stock, fore-end and body. blah, blah.

(b) etc, etc

2. The pattern of this rifle has been approved to govern manufacture of rifles required without cut-offs.

It differs from the Mk 111 rifle in that the body is not slotted and drilled to receive the cut-off and screw, but, like the Mark 111, may embody the modifications mentioned at 1 above. "

The timing of all this overlaps the changeover from Mk 6 to Mk 7 ammo, and thus includes sighting and magazine changes. the Mk 111 was introduced in 1907 and thus, was set up for Mk 6 ball, the Mk 7 not seeing service until 1910. The Mk111* was introduced as a "wartime expediency" in January 1916, some time after Mk7 ball had been officially adopted.

Photos from the Gallipoli/ Dardanelles campaign show the widespread use of Mk111 rifles, (and a LOT of older "long" variants), as well as prodigious quantities of Mk6 ammo.

[BushyFromOz]

He was a roo shooter before the war. Most likely his own rifle.

Were there standardised equipment for commando companies, or did they have leeway for using non standard equipment?