-
Legacy Member
They do have a weakness, barrel replacement
-
Thank You to pocketshaver For This Useful Post:
-
03-23-2019 12:59 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
The Lithgow plant was probably the most sophisticated Lee Enfield factory in the world until North American No4 production started.
The entire suite of machinery and gauging was built by Pratt and Whitney in the US, run up briefly to prove the system and then shipped to the hills west of Sydney, where a complete set of new buildings, steam plant and electric power generation had been built to spec.
This is where the story of the "Enfield Inch" and the "Pratt and Whitney Inch" started.
P&W got all its drawings from Britain and commenced designing and building ALL of the tooling, gauging and machinery to mass-produce the No1 Mk111 rifle.
Each "station" did a specific "operation, or sometimes three closely related ones. For instance, the hole in the butt socket (ferrule) to accommodate the safety-catch spring required a mounting jig to hold each body at the correct angle and a "base plate" into which this jig would sit precisely. Then at successive, identically set-up stations, it would be start-drilled, first drilled, final-drilled, and then, tapped, with the component body being held perfectly rigid in precisely the same relationship with each successive boring / tapping machine. The components would be gauged, with purpose-made, specific gauges, at each operation and the "accepted" ones placed in wooden trays to be transported to the next operation station.
Bear in mind that this was ALL powered by steam-driven, overhead shafts that delivered power to each machine by leather belts.
Such was "high-tech" in 1912. At the time, Lithgow was the most sophisticated small arms facility in the world.
The problems came when the Lithgow lads proudly shipped samples of their "interchangeable" rifles to the Old Dart. The "Enfield" gauging" indicated differences from "their" standards, finally tracked back to the fact that Pratt and Whitney had their own "inch". There is a record if there once being a "drawing" in the Lithgow archives detailing this difference. I have never seen it, but there it is, somewhere.
---------- Post added at 05:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 AM ----------
And let's not forget the tool-room boffins, who had to certify all the gauging and jigs AND make all the specialized milling cutters, drill bits, thread taps etc. Remember, the No1 was full of weird "Enfield" threads that were unlike anything else on the planet.
-
The Following 3 Members Say Thank You to Bruce_in_Oz For This Useful Post:
-
-
Contributing Member
Absolutely fascinating Bruce, so would it be true to say that Lithgow's are more interchangeable than UK manufactured SMLE's, I know they are all basically interchangeable, but perhaps requiring less hand fitting?
A Lithgow No1 MK3* is high on my buying list for this year to keep my Lithgow L1 company.
.303, helping Englishmen express their feelings since 1889
-
-
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by
pocketshaver
They do have a weakness, barrel replacement
Show me a rifle that doesn't pocketshaver
.303, helping Englishmen express their feelings since 1889
-
Thank You to mrclark303 For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
Interchangeability was something which many firms claimed to have (Singer sewing machines, McCormick Reapers) but quietly did a lot of hand-fitting too.
Winchester were driven mad trying to figure out Colt's production methods of making M1911s.
-
-
Legacy Member
Mr Clark:
"Show me a rifle that doesn't pocketshaver"
Johnson?
Mauser 66
The entire point was to make a full suite of components that could be assembled with minimum fitting. This also expedited repair in service and especially in the field.
This obviously requires strict attention to gauging, but it was worth the effort.
Having millions of "bespoke" weapons is a serious logistical nightmare.
And, for tonight's humour, I offer the attached:
-
Thank You to Bruce_in_Oz For This Useful Post:
-
Originally Posted by
Bruce_in_Oz
Pratt and Whitney in the US
It was a Pratt and Whitney sine bar Rifling machine that border barrels used to cut the rifling on their barrels, the machine they used was rebuilt etc but was originally used in the late 1890's IIRC on springfield barrels, Little did many Target shooters know that there heavy priced target barrel was indeed cut on a machine over a 100 years old......
-
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
Paul S.
Those who don't know tend to parrot the ramblings of the ignorant.
That said, there is a reason Australia used SMLEs from before WWI right through the Korean War and beyond. It soldiered on with the
Australian Army Reserve even after the SLR was readily available.
As for the BS that it would have cost too much to re-arm, it doesn't matter how many of a given tool of the trade you may have, you'll find a better tool for the job if the tool you have is crap. Witness
Canada and the Ross rifle circa 1915.
I'm afraid the Ross is a classic example of this habit of "group-think". There were actual front line veterans who had used the Ross and damned it, there were others who swore by it. However, once it was damned, every Tom, Dick & Harriet repeated the "stories" they heard, just as now they repeat other stories they've heard, without knowing any more about the facts of those matters. (Not that I am including you in that BTW, though we are all prone to "group-think".)
For those who haven't read the book, Iriam used the Ross in France from early 1915 to late 1918 when he was wounded.
Now we have been told by lots and lots of people who were not there, and did not happen to have lived through it that the Ross rifle was a failure as a military arm, and that 1st Division was handicapped by being armed with it , and lots of men lost their lives through its jamming in critical places etc. and so on. Even men who did live through that fight, [St. Julien] but happened to hail from Merrie
England will tell you solemnly it [the Ross Rifle] was no good and never was. I cannot see it that way at all. If even a small fraction of the attention, time and money and labour of experts, had been put on the Ross, that has been spent on the Enfield and Springfield, we would now have a rifle that Canada might be proud of..... This record does not come from a base camp in England, neither does it hail from [the School of Musketry at] Hythe or [the N.R.A. ranges at] Bisley [Camp], nor yet from the lines of the motor transport back of [Mont] des Cats.
[Iriam's manuscript was published as he wrote it in the 1920s and 30s - although this text was strangely omitted - I can only assume that his son felt it would discredit him if included - a demonstration of that same phenomenon?]
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same.
-
Thank You to Surpmil For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
Finest bolt action battle rifle ever made, period.
-
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
Surpmil
I'm afraid the Ross is a classic example of this habit of "group-think". There were actual front line veterans who had used the Ross and damned it, there were others who swore by it. However, once it was damned, every Tom, Dick & Harriet repeated the "stories" they heard, just as now they repeat other stories they've heard, without knowing any more about the facts of those matters. (Not that I am including you in that BTW, though we are all prone to "group-think".)
For those who haven't read the book, Iriam used the Ross in
France from early 1915 to late 1918 when he was wounded.
[
Iriam's manuscript was published as he wrote it in the 1920s and 30s - although this text was strangely omitted - I can only assume that his son felt it would discredit him if included - a demonstration of that same phenomenon?]
My reading of history tells a different story. It tells of how political influence was a component in the Ross Rifle being adopted in the first place. It speaks of political influence being used to keep it in service in France. I know from reading war histories of CEF battalions (available for study) that some were issued 'Enfield Rifles' before 2nd Ypres.
-