Lee Speed/Metford Top (Dust) Cover source?

[Jc5]

jc5, Outstanding! Id love to see the final book!

In my opinion, the best collector's reference book today is The M1 Carbine by L. C. Larsen. Its unlikely there are records extent as comprehensive or the with the same level of detail that is available for the M1 Carbine, but, as a collector I appreciate the quality of the color pics, the individual parts by mfr and type labeled and pictured, the year by year, manufacturer by manufacturer, production block by production block, and part version by version detail, and all the separate sections for part markings, accessories and others is just outstanding!

For me, the distinction between Lee Metford, Lee Speed and Long Lee military pattern rifles is still unclear. There seems to be many Lee Speed military pattern rifles used in conflicts including WWI. Or am I mistaken? So to me, commercial vs. government rifles, after all thee years, seems unimportant, or vague at least.

I confess that I have only skimmed thru Skennerton's book. I will look into the section you suggested, but the standard I compare collector's books is Larsen's.

I very much appreciate your posts on this issue. I will receive the rifle tomorrow and start restoration evaluation and plans. I found a good bayo and scabbard at a "good" price but no frog. I will get a repro frog from Savage. He does excellent wok in my experience. I have yet to follow the one or two leads on the dust cover (the original topic of this entry), but my expectations are low. As I may have mentioned, this rifle is the 103rd, and likely the last for a time, long arm in a collection of long arms of each major belligerent (battle and sniper rifles, and carbines) from the Spanish American War thru the Cold War that is on display at the Texas Veterans Hall of Museum in Denton, Texas north of Dallas (often considered an extension of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex). I need all the help I can get as I am sure Ive got errors in my collection (e.g., I recently determined that an Arisaka T44 in my WWII section was a 1914 WWI rifle!. That was actually an exciting find for me!!)

Thanks for sharing the recommendation of Larson's book. I do not own it, but I have seen it at shows. I am not an expert on M1 carbines, though I have read Ruth's 3-volume set. (IMHO, one does not become an expert by reading a book---though that certainly gives you a strong foundation of knowledge---but by examining hundreds of rifles and comparing them). I admit that I am partial to Ruth's approach, though of course there are problems with it. I see what you mean about Larson's book---I cannot agree with some of the choices he (or his publisher) made, but I can understand why a collector would appreciate seeing the information laid out in that way. I will definitely keep that in mind for the Lee-Speed book, and try offer something that collectors can use to identify the rifle they come across. I am grateful for this insight. It's hard to make one single book that will satisfy all readers and be useful both to collectors and historians, but there's probably not a market for two books.

The arms collection project at the museum in Denton sounds like a very ambitious project! All respect and congratulations to you for undertaking it! If I am down near Dallas I will try to check it out.

Regarding the various terms for Lee rifles, see the last section of Skennertons book... all the government models are laid out there. "Long Lee" is just an informal term for the original rifles that had the long barrels... versus the carbines and (later) the SMLE, which were short rifles. The Lee-Metford was the original British military Lee, and "Metford" refers to the rifling. When they adopted 5-groove rifling in 1895, they adopted the name "Lee-Enfield." The term "Lee-SPeed" does not refer to rifling or to a model, but to patent acknowledgement markings that were found on commercial rifles. By "commercial rifle," I mean one that was produced for sale to anyone besides HM Government. Sometimes these commercial rifles were sold to foreign governments (with War Office permission) or to civilians. They were made on the same machinery as the government rifles, but only the "service patterns" were made to government specifications. There were other models (which I described above) that were "semi-military" or "sporting" (for big game hunters) and also smallbore versions (for smallbore target shooting). The service pattern rifles that were made for target shooting were of the military pattern by were often a higher grade of fit and finish (these are the ones you hear about being of a higher grade---please see the article I referenced above for a fuller discusson of the Lee-Speed target models). But as a customer, you paid extra for that---if you wanted one that was plain grade, you could get that too. I hope this makes it all less vague.

Yes, Lee-Speeds saw action is various conflicts--- not as general issue of course, but in the hands of some officers, and in certain other circumstances. Jameson Raid, Boer War (both sides), Rhodesia, WWI (as sniping rifles), and some purchased by the Royal Navy (complicated story).

[muffett.2008]

While we are on J.J Speed, in 1887 he was listed as a Mechanical Engineer, his patent applications made no reference of affiliation with any organisation.
His patents for the volley sights and Magazine cutoff were listed that year.
By 1903 he was just listed by name after the superintendent, in 1906 he was listed as Engineer and again in 1907 and seems to disappear from mention at Enfield Lock by 1910.

LoC 5877 Rifle Magazine (Mk. 1) dec.1888 lists these additions.

[1903Collector]

jc5, again, thanks for your time and knowledge sharing.

Regarding the museum. It is essentially there to honor of Texas veterans, past and present, and to collect their stories into our data base for posterity. The story of many a soldier is either never told due to reluctance of the soldier to recount such events least they relive it, or due to their passing without leaving any legacy. It was started by two Vietnam Air Force non-com vets for that very reason. They approached me over a year ago to display part of my collection for a time to help raise funds and patronage. I saw a win-win there since I could count on two hands the number of people who saw my collection in my display room at home. My biggest flaw and asset, both, is my tendance to share my growing knowledge of the history that the firearms represent as well as the firearms themselves. I still notice the look in the eyes of some of a deer staring into headlights while I prattle on about any aspect of the collection when I am attending the museum, but work on reading which want to hear info and which dont.

It has been my practice that once I buy, or decide to buy a new type of firearm I invest in the best book or books available, if available, and study the subject as time allows. I am blessed with near photographic memory so once read, I seem to both grasp the content as well as retain it with the ability to recount the info relatively accurately. I cant say my library is vast, but it is growing and is getting close to filling a 6' tall x 3' wide 5 shelf book case. It was in this practice that I came across Larsen's book after working on about 50 carbines. I had acquired the works of Reisch, Ruth, Harrison, and one or two others but never found answers to all my questions in one single book. In my experience Larsen's work is the closest thing to a "stand alone" reference book on any of the 88 different long arms in my collection. I worked on almost 100 more carbines afterwards and used and abused the edition I first bought to the point that I "had" to replace it this year with the latest edition. I would be grateful if you could elaborate what you see as the negative issues of Larsen's book. I try to maintain an objective approach to everything, never latching on to any opinion, but always challenging my perceptions and on-going conclusions.

The Lee Speed I acquired (and hope to pick u today) came from Ethiopia. That is the only provenance available at the moment, but it was in the hands of a soldier (perhaps combatant is more correct) and COULD have been involved in one of the conflicts (in this case WWI) and used by one of the countries I count as a primary belligerent (in this case, the British Empire). In addition to this criteria my collection is limited to non-automatic long arms of the modern era (smokeless powder cartridges). It is not 100% complete, but Im getting close.

I expect the Lee Speed will need a lot of work and likely repairs to at least the lower hand guard, but for my purposes, it fits nicely to the theme of the collection. There are no museum queens in my collection. A few are in VERY GOOD to EXCELLENT condition, but all have clearly been in the hands of a soldier and are likely to be used by the country of origin during the subject conflicts (I just have no way to know if it saw any actual action).

[1903Collector]

Thanks for sharing the recommendation of Larson's book. I do not own it, but I have seen it at shows. I am not an expert on M1 carbines, though I have read Ruth's 3-volume set. (IMHO, one does not become an expert by reading a book---though that certainly gives you a strong foundation of knowledge---but by examining hundreds of rifles and comparing them). I admit that I am partial to Ruth's approach, though of course there are problems with it. I see what you mean about Larson's book---I cannot agree with some of the choices he (or his publisher) made, but I can understand why a collector would appreciate seeing the information laid out in that way. I will definitely keep that in mind for the Lee-Speed book, and try offer something that collectors can use to identify the rifle they come across. I am grateful for this insight. It's hard to make one single book that will satisfy all readers and be useful both to collectors and historians, but there's probably not a market for two books.

The arms collection project at the museum in Denton sounds like a very ambitious project! All respect and congratulations to you for undertaking it! If I am down near Dallas I will try to check it out.

Regarding the various terms for Lee rifles, see the last section of Skennertons book... all the government models are laid out there. "Long Lee" is just an informal term for the original rifles that had the long barrels... versus the carbines and (later) the SMLE, which were short rifles. The Lee-Metford was the original British military Lee, and "Metford" refers to the rifling. When they adopted 5-groove rifling in 1895, they adopted the name "Lee-Enfield." The term "Lee-SPeed" does not refer to rifling or to a model, but to patent acknowledgement markings that were found on commercial rifles. By "commercial rifle," I mean one that was produced for sale to anyone besides HM Government. Sometimes these commercial rifles were sold to foreign governments (with War Office permission) or to civilians. They were made on the same machinery as the government rifles, but only the "service patterns" were made to government specifications. There were other models (which I described above) that were "semi-military" or "sporting" (for big game hunters) and also smallbore versions (for smallbore target shooting). The service pattern rifles that were made for target shooting were of the military pattern by were often a higher grade of fit and finish (these are the ones you hear about being of a higher grade---please see the article I referenced above for a fuller discusson of the Lee-Speed target models). But as a customer, you paid extra for that---if you wanted one that was plain grade, you could get that too. I hope this makes it all less vague.

Yes, Lee-Speeds saw action is various conflicts--- not as general issue of course, but in the hands of some officers, and in certain other circumstances. Jameson Raid, Boer War (both sides), Rhodesia, WWI (as sniping rifles), and some purchased by the Royal Navy (complicated story).

What is your opinion of "The Lee-Enfield Rifle" by E. G. B. Reynolds?

[Jc5]

What is your opinion of "The Lee-Enfield Rifle" by E. G. B. Reynolds?

It is a great book. Generally considered to be be superseded by Skennerton, but still a great read. Kudos to Reynolds for being the first one to publish a full book on these rifles. That is quite an achievement, with no precedent to follow.

[1903Collector]

I agree, "upon the shoulders of giants we often stand!"

[Strangely Brown]

Some ironic trivia concerning Major E.G.B Reynolds:

During the course of some research I found E.G.B. Reynolds name in the 1930 NRA (UK) prize book which lists all the competitors of that years Imperial Meeting. This was the year Marjory Foster won the Kings Prize and was denied the medal on account of her being a woman!

The entry simply says Corporal E.G.B. Reynolds late 11th Rifle Brigade, in view of our discussion further up on this thread concerning corporals it made me smile!

[Surpmil]

I agree, "upon the shoulders of giants we often stand!"

While looking larger than life by having done so!

[Jc5]

Thanks for sharing pics of your rifle. Congrats on getting this interesting, classic rifle. It is really quite wonderful—though it needs some restoration.

Here’s what I can see from your photos. It is not a commercial rifle at all—it is a government rifle through and through, with one exception: the bolt head (not necessarily the entire bolt) has a commercial patent stamped on it (Patent 19145/90), which means the bolt head was from a commercial rifle. First thing to check is if there is a number on the bolt handle and if it matches any other number on the rifle. If it does not match, then you have a commercial bolt (from a “Lee-Speed”) that is mismatched. If it matches, then for some unknown reason, the manufacturer (LSA Co.) used a commercial bolt. We know the rest of the rifle is not commercial because there are no commercial proof marks on it—only Gov’t proofs. For information on what the 19145/90 patent means, see the article here: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=76034

So what do you have? It is a CLLE Mk I* (pronounced “Mark One Star”). CLLE stands for “Charger Loading Lee-Enfield.” These rifles were conversions of the Lee-Enfield Mk I* (beginning in 1907), to convert them to charger loading (i.e., to enable them to be loaded with stripper clips, or “chargers” in British parlance). So, your rifle was originally a “Magazine, Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I*” made by LSA (London Small Arms Co., Ltd, located in Old Ford, Bow, London) in 1902. That is what the right-side markings on the butt socket tell you. You are correct that “ER” stands for Edward Rex (he had just become king after Queen Victoria died in 1901). This rifle was always a Lee-Enfield (with Enfield 5-grroove rifling in the barrel)—it was never a Lee-Metford.

The conversion details are indicated on the left side of the butt socket: converted by LSA to CLLE Mk I* in 1909. For details on this conversion (exactly what was changed) see your Skennerton book. He covers all this, so I need not repeat all that here. Basically, the charger bridge was added, the sights were upgraded, and the front sight got a pair of protective “ears” and the bolt cover was removed (it doesn’t fit anymore when you add the charger bridge). The barrel is stamped ’11, so this rifle probably got a new barrel in 1911, to accommodate the new MkVII ammunition, and at that time the front volley dial-sight would have been changed to a plate marked “CL” and graduated from 1700-2700 yards (you can use one from an SMLE, but it won’t be correct).

Keep in mind that all these changes were legitimate Government-authorized conversions… not someone monkeyng around. They were official upgrades for use by the British military, and they were definitely used. It is almost certain this particular rifle was used in World War One. Such changes do not make it less valuable or less desirable.

For details on how this rifle started life, see Skennerton page 450 (Magazine, Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I*)
For details on the conversion it underwent in 1909, see Skennerton page 457 (Charger Loading Lee-Enfield Mk I*)

Anther great book from Skennerton (inexpensive) that is extremely useful for collecting or for restorations is “Lee-Enfield Parts Catalogue”—No.23 in the Small Arms Identification Series (S.A.I.S.) It illustrates the changes in every part from the first Lee-Metford all the way to the No.4 rifle of WWII. You can find it here: http://www.skennerton.com/sais.html. That little book is money well spent.

As for the markings on the butt plate (HQ/ASC/SMD), I’m not an expert on those, but you can look them up in the Skennerton book, or in his other book “The Broad Arrow.” Or ask on the forum—someone will know. I am not an expert on all those unit markings. My area of expertise is the commercial rifles (Lee-Speeds).

You observed that it has a "B.E. crown and date”— do you mean the stamp on the left side of the action, where it meets the barrel? Looks to me like it is actually Crown over X (rubbed out or lightly struck) over 88. The letter x (as you can see in other inspection marks nearby) is the factory code for LSA. These are all Government marks. I do not see any commercial markings on this gun, except for the bolt head.

As for the restoration, I am not an expert on that sort of thing—I’m mainly a historian and researcher. I have examined a large number of Enfields, especially the commercial models, but I’m not the best guy to advise you on where to find the missing parts that you need for the restoration. I think the first step is to determine exactly what you need (now that you know it’s a CLLE MkI* it should be easier) and ask on the forums. Someone will have it or be able to help. Be patient—the part you need will turn up eventually. I can tell that you will need the correct volley sight and the rear sight slide. As for the bolt, it is the correct pattern (despite having a commercial bolt head) so I would just leave that as it is. Still, I would like to know more about that bolt. Please let me know what other markings are present on the bolt handle and the cocking piece. If it is a mismatch, and you want a Government bolt, then it won’t be hard to find one (with Government markings, maybe even an LSA one), and you can sell me the commercial bolt—I’ll find a use for it on a Lee-Speed. However, we do not know yet whether the bolt is incorrect—it is unusual, but not necessarily incorrect. Maybe LSA just used a bolt that they had in the bin, and "commercial vs Govt" didn’t matter for some reason. The commercial bolt head (although incorrect for a Gov't rifle) is actually more scarce and desirable by people who are restoring Lee-Speeds, so you kind of lucked out on getting that.

Good luck with this restoration—an admirable project. This fine rifle deserves a proper restoration and display. The guns of the London Small Arms Co. have been a special interest of mine.

[1903Collector]

Thanks for sharing pics of your rifle. Congrats on getting this interesting, classic rifle. It is really quite wonderful—though it needs some restoration.

Here’s what I can see from your photos. It is not a commercial rifle at all—it is a government rifle through and through, with one exception: the bolt head (not necessarily the entire bolt) has a commercial patent stamped on it (Patent 19145/90), which means the bolt head was from a commercial rifle. First thing to check is if there is a number on the bolt handle and if it matches any other number on the rifle. If it does not match, then you have a commercial bolt (from a “Lee-Speed”) that is mismatched. If it matches, then for some unknown reason, the manufacturer (LSA Co.) used a commercial bolt. We know the rest of the rifle is not commercial because there are no commercial proof marks on it—only Gov’t proofs. For information on what the 19145/90 patent means, see the article here: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=76034

So what do you have? It is a CLLE Mk I* (pronounced “Mark One Star”). CLLE stands for “Charger Loading Lee-Enfield.” These rifles were conversions of the Lee-Enfield Mk I* (beginning in 1907), to convert them to charger loading (i.e., to enable them to be loaded with stripper clips, or “chargers” in British parlance). So, your rifle was originally a “Magazine, Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I*” made by LSA (London Small Arms Co., Ltd, located in Old Ford, Bow, London) in 1902. That is what the right-side markings on the butt socket tell you. You are correct that “ER” stands for Edward Rex (he had just become king after Queen Victoria died in 1901). This rifle was always a Lee-Enfield (with Enfield 5-grroove rifling in the barrel)—it was never a Lee-Metford.

The conversion details are indicated on the left side of the butt socket: converted by LSA to CLLE Mk I* in 1909. For details on this conversion (exactly what was changed) see your Skennerton book. He covers all this, so I need not repeat all that here. Basically, the charger bridge was added, the sights were upgraded, and the front sight got a pair of protective “ears” and the bolt cover was removed (it doesn’t fit anymore when you add the charger bridge). The barrel is stamped ’11, so this rifle probably got a new barrel in 1911, to accommodate the new MkVII ammunition, and at that time the front volley dial-sight would have been changed to a plate marked “CL” and graduated from 1700-2700 yards (you can use one from an SMLE, but it won’t be correct).

Keep in mind that all these changes were legitimate Government-authorized conversions… not someone monkeyng around. They were official upgrades for use by the British military, and they were definitely used. It is almost certain this particular rifle was used in World War One. Such changes do not make it less valuable or less desirable.

For details on how this rifle started life, see Skennerton page 450 (Magazine, Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I*)
For details on the conversion it underwent in 1909, see Skennerton page 457 (Charger Loading Lee-Enfield Mk I*)

Anther great book from Skennerton (inexpensive) that is extremely useful for collecting or for restorations is “Lee-Enfield Parts Catalogue”—No.23 in the Small Arms Identification Series (S.A.I.S.) It illustrates the changes in every part from the first Lee-Metford all the way to the No.4 rifle of WWII. You can find it here: http://www.skennerton.com/sais.html. That little book is money well spent.

As for the markings on the butt plate (HQ/ASC/SMD), I’m not an expert on those, but you can look them up in the Skennerton book, or in his other book “The Broad Arrow.” Or ask on the forum—someone will know. I am not an expert on all those unit markings. My area of expertise is the commercial rifles (Lee-Speeds).

You observed that it has a "B.E. crown and date”— do you mean the stamp on the left side of the action, where it meets the barrel? Looks to me like it is actually Crown over X (rubbed out or lightly struck) over 88. The letter x (as you can see in other inspection marks nearby) is the factory code for LSA. These are all Government marks. I do not see any commercial markings on this gun, except for the bolt head.

As for the restoration, I am not an expert on that sort of thing—I’m mainly a historian and researcher. I have examined a large number of Enfields, especially the commercial models, but I’m not the best guy to advise you on where to find the missing parts that you need for the restoration. I think the first step is to determine exactly what you need (now that you know it’s a CLLE MkI* it should be easier) and ask on the forums. Someone will have it or be able to help. Be patient—the part you need will turn up eventually. I can tell that you will need the correct volley sight and the rear sight slide. As for the bolt, it is the correct pattern (despite having a commercial bolt head) so I would just leave that as it is. Still, I would like to know more about that bolt. Please let me know what other markings are present on the bolt handle and the cocking piece. If it is a mismatch, and you want a Government bolt, then it won’t be hard to find one (with Government markings, maybe even an LSA one), and you can sell me the commercial bolt—I’ll find a use for it on a Lee-Speed. However, we do not know yet whether the bolt is incorrect—it is unusual, but not necessarily incorrect. Maybe LSA just used a bolt that they had in the bin, and "commercial vs Govt" didn’t matter for some reason. The commercial bolt head (although incorrect for a Gov't rifle) is actually more scarce and desirable by people who are restoring Lee-Speeds, so you kind of lucked out on getting that.

Good luck with this restoration—an admirable project. This fine rifle deserves a proper restoration and display. The guns of the London Small Arms Co. have been a special interest of mine.

This is enormously helpful and quite impressive! I cant thank you enough! :-) I request permission to quote you in our museum literature that may eventually be in a book that I started a year ago about The Journey of Collecting Vintage Military Surplus Firearms - Battle and Sniper Rifles, and Carbines from All Combatants of Conflicts Involving the US During the Modern Smokeless Powder Era. A mouthful, I know...Ill have to work on a more succinct title with a hook! ;-) Ive started two industry books in my field of expertise back in 2009 and still haven't finished them, so we shall see! :-)