CLLE 1

[Emb145]

How many CLLE1 no star are out their ?
Where they only converted for the Royal Navy ?
Are the CLLE upper sling swivels the same as a SMLE?
Carl

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.

[Gil Boyd]

Carl,
I am sure someone with more knowledge will come on but are you talking about this one forward of the magazine, image from elsewhere some years ago, also this thread from 2017 on the CLLE:
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=59906

[Emb145]

Photos
Carl

[smle addict]

A few possible answers:

1. Skennerton states this type of charger loader is not as common as the Mk I*, with no official date in the list of changes. I have an LSA converted CLLE Mk I (that is pictured in the link provided by Gil Boyd). This is the only one I have ever seen for sale, and I purchased it back in 1992. The few others I have seen (maybe three?) have all been posted here. So a safe guess to answer your question would be very, very few.

2. While the majority were converted for Naval use, some evidently were not. Mine does not have the "N" stamp, indicating naval ownership.

3. A quick glance at my CLLE Mk I and an SMLE Mk III*, the sling swivels appear to be the same.

The only pic I can add that shows the unique feature of this model is the groove cut in the charger bridge to allow for the lower sighting radius of the original MLE Mk I* sights.

[Emb145]

I looked in the LES book not much there .
My CLLE is not navy marked .

Carl

[Roy]

I have three CLLE 1's and indeed one of mine is the subject of the thread linked above. All of mine however have been modified/restored so understanding them is quite difficult. One is a India Pattern conversion, though sadly sporterised beyond restoration, is a smart conversion and I will preserve it as such. The third is a range pattern 24" barrel conversion which is matched down to the cocking piece. None that I have seen in NZ have the conversion factory or date marked on them and most I have seen are N marked. interesting features include hand filed notches for the Mk3 magazine stop clip in the MLE trigger guard with the chain loop removed. I have a hunch they were all imported into NZ for the civilian market pre WW2 since the only two that I know with original features have no NZ ownership marks other than Home Guard markings.

[Lance]

Greetings Gentlemen

A quick favor for those having VSM CLLE Mk I's, can you please check the barrel to see what type of rifling you have? My example, marked as CLLE Mk I has its matching 1911 barrel with Medford rifling.

In 1910 permission was given to use up existing Metford barrels during the CLLE conversion and still mark them as CLLE and not CLLM. From my limited observed rifle bank I have only come across VSM converted rifles like this, but this might be due to the fact that I have only come across VSM CLLE Mk I's?

Of added interest, mine was later upgraded to Mk VII ammo sighting later in life and it is not Naval marked (sadly).

Lance

[smle addict]

Hello again, Lance.

I have two VSM converted CLLE MK I*s and both have enfield-rifled barrels. In 2018, I purchased an Enfield converted charger loader. It is marked CLLM I, then had the M struck through with an E re-stamped under it and an asterisk added to the I, making it a CLLE Mk I*. But it still retains it's seven-groove metford barrel.

Previous thread attached.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=65953

[husk]

My CLLE MkI was converted by LSA in 1910 and still has Metford rifling so it falls in the category that Lance mentions. Serial numbers are matching and it has the groove in the Charger bridge. Royal Winnipeg Rifles. No Naval N.

[Alan de Enfield]

I can claim no credit for this list, I 'found it' some years ago but did not record the source, anyway - hope this helps.


History Of The Long Lee

Here are the types and production numbers of long Lee.

1. Magazine Lee-Metford (MLM) mk. I: 1889-1892. Only a handful left, nearly all upgraded to mk. I*.

2. Magazine Lee-Metford mk. I*: 1889-1892 (upgrades from mk. I), 1893-c. 1906 (new made), the latter type being scarcer and more desirable (n=359,500 mk. I and mk. I* combined; the records do not differentiate).

3. Magazine Lee-Metford mk. II: 1892-1896. Moderately scarce (n=252,075).

4. Magazine Lee-Metford mk. II*: 1895-1896. Rare (n=13,479).

5. Magazine Lee-Enfield (MLE) mk. I: 1896-1899. Slightly scarce (n=317,196).

6. Magazine Lee-Enfield mk. I*: 1899-c. 1903. Slightly scarce, though most that exist are in Australia or NZ; uncommon in North America (n=590,841).

7. Charger-loading Lee-Metford (CLLM) mk. II: 1907-1909. Rare, nearly all upgraded to CLLE mk. I* (n=unknown but no fewer than 4,454).

8. Charger-loading Lee-Enfield (CLLE) mk. I: 1907?-1914? Rare and exact production dates unknown (n=unknown but no fewer than 778).

9. Charger-loading Lee-Enfield mk. I*: 1907-c. 1915. Moderately scarce (n=unknown but approx. 327,000 plus most of the CLLMs upgraded).

The history of the charger-loading series of rifles is confusing and is worth repeating here. In 1902, the List of Changes (LOC) declared that Lee-Metford carbines (§ 11078) and rifles (§ 11498) would, upon rebarrelling with Enfield barrels, be renamed Lee-Enfields. (The List of Changes was a military periodical that detailed the introduction of new weapons, accoutrements and equipment.) For rifles mks. II and II*, the latter marks of arm were to be struck and “L.E.” and “I*” added on the buttsocket. This was logical but made it impossible to verbally distinguish the safetyless former mk. IIs from the safety-fitted former mk. II*s and safety-fitted Lee-Enfields. Two years later, in March 1904, the rule was rescinded. Regardless of barrel type, all (safetyless) rifles that had started as MLM mk. IIs were to be called such (LOC § 12184), and the 1902-vintage “I*” retrostamps were to be crossed out and a new “II” retrostamp added. In July 1907, the conversion programme for the CLLM mk. II and CLLE mk. I* began, the former converted from MLM mk. IIs and the latter from MLE mk. Is and I*s and MLM mk. II*s (LOC §13992). There was no mention of a CLLE mk. I model. In February 1909, the CLLM mk. II conversion program was ended, and all existing CLLMs were to be altered to CLLE mk. I* by having new safety-type bolts fitted (§14758). (In 1910, its being assumed that all Metford barrels would by now have been replaced, the stamping of a distinguishing nocksform “E” for Enfield-rifling was desisted (§ 15000).) In September 1914, the LOC acknowledged its failure previously to mention the CLLE mk. I, going on to describe the alterations necessary to upgrade the model to accept mk. VII ammunition (§ 17041). A month later (§ 17011), the LOC described the same process for the CLLE mk. I*. There was no corresponding entry for the CLLM mk. II because by now all were supposed to have been converted to CLLE mk. I*.

There were also two Indian charger-loaders described in the Indian List of Changes (ILOC), the CLLE mk. I India Pattern and the CLLE mk. II India Pattern. The former had a charger guide, not bridge, while the latter was virtually identical to the regular British CLLE mk. I. The India Pattern CLLEs are virtually unknown today. I know of the existence of two of the mk. IIs and none of the mk. Is