16 Mar. 2005
12:05pm
Re: Calling All NZ Carbine Owners
Fellas,
Per the 1,500 New Zealand carbines issued a century ago, I am doing some research on their serial numbers. Let me be clear here: I am looking at serial numbers (stamped on barrel, receiver, bolt and sometimes backsight); I am not looking at rack numbers (engraved on the right-side socket).
I am in particular trying to find out about which of the carbines have NZ-specific serial numbers and which have older, previously assigned serial numbers (pre-conversion serial numbers). I wrote to Ian Skennerton about this, and he tells me that some have NZ-specific serial numbers and some have the older numbers. That would be a very Enfield thing to do but, I would have thought, it would make for an organizational nightmare.
I am inclined to think that most should have NZ-specific numbers, as these carbines were not true conversions in the sense that RIC carbines were conversions. Each RIC carbine was actually built and completed as something else once upon a time (either an LMC I, an LEC I or an LEC I*), before being changed into an RIC carbine.
The NZ carbines, on the other hand, were never actually completed firearms prior to being made into NZ carbines. They were in fact the first “bitsers,” in that they were made up from spare items lying around the factory. It seems unlikely to me that many of these spares would already have had serial numbers assigned to them.
I have been doing a little survey of NZ carbines, just by looking at pictures and scanning the bulletin boards for info on individual firearms. All the NZ carbines I have come across so far are either built on unmarked, generic LEC receivers (these are sometimes referred to as “purpose built” NZ carbines, discussed by Skennerton, though he does not use that term). All the others I have seen are built on LEC I* receivers, though none of these would never actually have been on a completed LEC I*. I have found none built on LMC or LEC I receivers.
It is the LEC I* types I am interested in. All the generic LEC types have relatively low serial numbers, from what I can see, and presumably all these are NZ-specific serial numbers. But what about the LEC I* types? Do they have old LEC I* serial numbers or their own NZ numbers?
How will you be able to tell? Well, anything well above 1500 would be a dead giveaway. Also, many of the real, as-issued LEC I* cavalry carbines have a letter suffix after the serial number.
Has anyone got an NZ carbine, particularly an LEC I* type, with a high serial number? Or with a letter suffix?
Can people let me know their serial numbers, if this is not too great an invasion of privacy. If you don’t want to post the number, you can e-mail me privately at munro@intergroupservices.com.
As an aside, here is what I have so far. I have full or partial information on 11 carbines. Of these, five are LEC I* types and three are generic, purpose-built types. I do not have enough info on the other three to make a determination.
Of the LEC I* types, all except one have 1903 rack dates. The other one has a 1901 rack date, despite having a 1903 manufacture date. (This is either a mistake, or the rack date may pertain to the contract year, not the shipment year.)
Of the purpose-built types, all have 1901 rack dates.
As for the other three, two have 1901 rack dates and I don’t know about the other.
Any info you can let me have will be appreciated.
Regards to all,
Coggansfield
<p>
Calling All NZ Carbine Owners
Moderator: joseyclosey
-
coggansfield
- Regular visitor
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:13 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
Re: Calling All NZ Carbine Owners
Hi Coggansfield,
as you will have noticed I have stuck your post to the top of the forum so that it doesn't dissappear over time and you might then loose the opportunity of garnering information.
I would be interested if you would update the post with any information you recieve.
Good luck in your search for info and thanks for taking this upon your self.
The further we get away from the "time" of these old firearme the more difficult it will be to research them which make initiatives like these very important to our pastime.
The other thing about this type of research is that it ivariably raises more questions and lines of interrogation which just adds more interest to our collecting and hair pulling.
Adam.
as you will have noticed I have stuck your post to the top of the forum so that it doesn't dissappear over time and you might then loose the opportunity of garnering information.
I would be interested if you would update the post with any information you recieve.
Good luck in your search for info and thanks for taking this upon your self.
The further we get away from the "time" of these old firearme the more difficult it will be to research them which make initiatives like these very important to our pastime.
The other thing about this type of research is that it ivariably raises more questions and lines of interrogation which just adds more interest to our collecting and hair pulling.
Adam.
-
coggansfield
- Regular visitor
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:13 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
Re: Calling All NZ Carbine Owners
20 March 2005
3:30pm
Thanks, Adam,
I will certainly update the thread periodically with my findings. I have had a decent number of resposes from one of the other boards and this week I will try distilling the findings in to something coherent (not always easy with Enfields, as you suggest).
Regards,
Coggansfield
<p>
3:30pm
Thanks, Adam,
I will certainly update the thread periodically with my findings. I have had a decent number of resposes from one of the other boards and this week I will try distilling the findings in to something coherent (not always easy with Enfields, as you suggest).
Regards,
Coggansfield
<p>
-
coggansfield
- Regular visitor
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:13 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
Re: Calling All NZ Carbine Owners
22 Mar. 2005
11am
Re: Initial Results from NZ Carbine Survey
Fellas,
The NZ carbine series turned out very well. Thanks to all who helped out, particularly Ray in NZ, LeftBoot and John Sukey. I got one match out of it. One of the respondents had a bolt matched to another carbine on which I had information, though I was unable to get in touch with the owner of the latter.
As is common with Enfield studies, the survey raises more questions than it answers. The most awkward thing is that, very simply, my sample’s serial numbers imply that there were more than 1,500 of these things. It is an article of faith that no more than 1,500 were made, however.
Before moving to the details, here is my theory in summary:
• First batch of 1,000 shipped : all LEC generic types, serialed from 40-ish to 1040-ish. All accepted in 1901.
• Second batch of 500 shipped : all LEC I* types, serialed from 1041-odd to 1540-odd. All accepted in 1903.
• Strange serial numbered carbines 1548 and 1582 part of a different (supplemental?) contract.
I have full or partial information on 17 carbines — over one percent of the supposed total, which isn’t bad for a couple of days’ work. Of these 17, six are of the LEC generic, blank receiver type mentioned by Skennerton in “LES” (my shorthand for these is “purpose-built” NZ carbines, though that’s not strictly speaking accurate). Another ten are of the LEC I* receiver type. As for the remaining one, I did not get that information.
Before proceeding, let me clear up a couple of things. First, these things are technically speaking called “Lee-Enfield Carbine Fitted for the Pattern 1888 Bayonet.” That’s a mouthful, but keeping it in mind may help us remember that not every single one of these carbines may have gone to NZ, as Skennerton suggests on page 6 of SAIS no. 7. Here, he shows one built in a Lee-Metford carbine receiver and with no New Zealand marks at all. Likewise the back cover the Skennerton’s “Broad Arrow” shows one with a clearing rod! Presumably this is another early variant, also perhaps not part of the NZ contract. For reasons I’ll explain below, I think a handful of these early types — I think about 40 — may have been made before the commencement of the NZ contract. Some of these many have been made on LMC or LEC I receivers. On the other hand, all my survey responses were either LEC generic types or LEC I* types, and I think all the guns that went to New Zealand were of these two types.
Before moving to the controversial stuff, let’s examine the easy issues. First, I think all NZ contract carbines and other pattern 1888 bayonet carbines in general do in fact have their own serial numbers, series-specific numbers. I do not think the LEC I* types have “carry-over” serial numbers, preassigned before their being turned into NZ carbines, as is sometimes suggested. All the serial numbers in this survey were straight numeric numbers. There were no letter suffixes, ubiquitous on regular LEC mk. I* carbines. All my survey serial numbers, with the exception of one, ranged from the 1xx range to the 16xx range. In contrast, from other little surveys I have done, I have seen that as early as 1900, actual LEC I* carbines were issued in the 5xxxA and and then the 9xxxB serial number ranges. By 1903, they had advanced to the 5xxxD range. I do not think any actual LEC I* carbine made in 1903 would have had a 1xxx number with no letter suffix.
Pretty much by definition, the same goes for the generic LEC receivers. I am pretty sure all these have series-specific numbers.
But what do the serial numbers tell us about the number of carbines made? We were all brought up to believe that 1,500 — and only 1,500 — of these guns were made, and that they were all shipped to New Zealand (1,000 in 1901 and 500 in 1903). So exactly how many of these guns were made? Depending on what you read, either (a) 1,500 were manufactured or (b) 1,500 were ordered by the NZers, which is not necessarily the same thing at all, opening the way for there to have been more than 1,500 manufactured, with the others being for other contracts. It is an important question, because the range of serial numbers in my survey indicates a total of more than 1,500.
Of my sample of 17, I have serial numbers for all. The lowest is 191, an all-matching specimen, I believe, still in New Zealand of the generic-receiver type. It was manufactured in 1901 and has an acceptance date of 1901 too. Obviously, the starting serial number for the NZ contract was below this (I speculate about at about number 40 or 50 or so).
The highest serial number encountered is 7931, which is a mismatched bolt on a lower numbered carbine of the LEC I* type. This 7931 number is so out of sync with all the other serial numbers that I think it is reasonable to assume — and I hope no one’s feelings are hurt here — that it is a replacement bolt from a different series altogether, a cavalry carbine of some sort, I expect.
The next highest number is 1629, another mismatched bolt from a lower numbered LEC I* type. This may or may not be a replacement from a cavalry carbine. This 1629 number is not all that far off the 15xx range, of which I have a number of examples, so it may well be a genuine NZ carbine serial number. However, if is it a real NZ number, then this implies that well over 1,500 of these firearms were made. We know that the very first carbine is serialed “1” with an “A” suffix; it is in the Pattern Room. For there to have been 1,500 carbines made in total, the second carbine would have to have been numbered 130 (1629-1499=130), which is unlikely, to say the least. For this reason, I think — though with less certainty than in the case of bolt 7931 — that bolt 1629 must be a cavalry carbine replacement as well.
Once the survey responses were in, I grouped the serial numbers into clusters of a hundred (1-100, 101-200, etc.). Not counting the 7931 and 1629 anomalies, I have at least one example of something (either a receiver, barrel or bolt) in every cluster from 1 to 1600 except two. The clusters in which I have nothing are 1-100 and 801-900. (I did not track backsight numbers, as most people did not report these, and some NZ backsights have no number anyway).
For the clusters 101 to 800, I have six carbines — 191, 219, 271, 401, 680 and 782 (receiver serial numbers) — and all of these are of the generic-receiver type. All for were made in 1901 and all have a 1901 acceptance date. I also have bolts 356 and 570 in that same 101-800 grouping. Bring up the rear is bolt 959.
As for the LEC I* types, the lowest serial number is 1054. The ten I have are numbered thus: 1054, 1352, 1386, 1403, 1411, 1459, 1501, 1547, 1548 and 1582 (receiver serial numbers). In there also is 1299, which I assume to be an LEC I* type, though I do not know for certain. Five of the LEC I* types were made in 1902. Three of these were undoubtedly delivered in 1903; one I do not know as it has no acceptance date engraved on it; and one purports to have been delivered in 1905. In this mix is LEC I* type 1386, which was delivered in 1903; I do not have its manufacture year, but it probably is 1902, as it falls within several other 1902 guns (low 1054, high 1459).
The oddballs are the serial number 15xx carbines. Number 1501 is quite straightforward, made in 1903, though I do not have its delivery year. Number 1547 was made in 1903 and apparently was delivered in 1904.
As for 1548 and 1582, these are strange, both LEC I* types. Number 1548 has 1903 on the left side of the receiver (manufacture date), but a delivery date of 1901. What is more, it has a low rack number, 374. (All the other LEC I* types I have rack number for have numbers in the 1000-plus range). This carbine indeed has my fourth lowest rack number but my second highest serial number (excluding 1629 and 7931), which simply makes no sense whatsoever.
Number 1582 is almost as odd. It has a manufacture date of 1902, but a delivery date of 1901. I do not have a rack number for it.
What can we figure from all of this mess?
First, I suspect there are in fact only two types of NZ-contract carbines: (a) those built on LEC generic receivers and (b) those built on LEC I* receivers. I do not think any LEC I receivers were used and certainly no LMC receivers for the NZ contract specifically. Skennerton’s books show LMC types and mention LEC I types, but were they for the NZ contract? My guess is that they are pattern 1888 bayonet carbines for another contract.
Second, I suspect, though I am not certain, that all of the first batch of 1,000 carbines (the batch accepted in 1901) were LEC generic types. And I am pretty positive that all of the second batch of 500 carbines (the batch accepted in 1903) were LEC I* types.
I think the serial numbers of the first thousand LEC-generic types may have run from serial number 40-odd to 1040 or so. This would (a) allow for a few LMC I and LEC I types in the very low serial number range (2 to 39), while still (b) permitting the LEC I* 1903 batch to pick up at 1041. My survey includes LEC I* type 1054, so we know that by the mid-10xx range we are into the LEC I* types already. Though it claims to have been delivered in 1905, the information supplier got the gun’s info to me from a catalogue, not from actually seeing it. I think the person putting the catalogue together mistook the “3” for a “5,” so this is probably part of the 1903 batch of 500.s
This would bring the second 500 run to an end at about 1540, meaning that 1547 could indeed have been delivered in 1904 and that the bizarre 1548 and 1582 — both of them apparently delivered (1901) before they were made (1903 and 1902, respectively) — may be part of some other series beyond my ken to speculate on. The same may go for the otherwise inexplicable 1629 bolt. (As for bolt 7931, this is still so far off that I think it must be a replacement from another type of carbine.) I have in the past come across one other NZ carbine apparently delivered in 1904. It was an LEC I* type. It was an auction item on a New Zealand web site. Sadly, I did not save the blurb, so I have no further details.
I understand that all of the above is highly speculative, but I have tried my best to make sense of serial numbers that otherwise are illogical. If everything we have always believed about NZ carbines were true, the truth is that serial numbers 1501, 1547, 1548 and 1582 (not to mention 1629 and 7931) should not exist. But there they are, plain as day. We cannot even say that perhaps the first batch of 1,000 LEC-generic, 1901-delivered types started at serial number 100, because that would take us to 1,100. Then what are to do with carbine 1054, an LEC I* type delivered in either 1903 or 1905 but, either way, certainly not in 1901.
Nor can we say that perhaps the second batch of 500 LEC I* types ended at 1700, because, working backward, that would mean a starting point of 1200. Once again, what are we to make of carbine 1054 or bolt 1177? And if the second batch of 500 did start at 1200, then the first batch of 1,000 would have started at 200. Then what are we to make of carbine 191?
Do you see the problem? My theory, while only educated guesswork, gives us:
• 40-odd non-NZ early models, explaining Skennerton’s pals’ Lee-Metford receiver types.
• 1,000 LEC-generic types, running to about serial number 1040, explaining how 1054 can be an LEC I* type.
• 500 LEC I* types, running to about serial number 1540, explaining 1547 with its 1904 delivery date and explaining, or at least allowing us to ignore, the inexplicable carbines 1548 and 1582, both apparently delivered before they were built. If we can mentally reclassify these two as being part of some other contract, this also allows us to include bolt 1629.
All suggestions will be gratefully received. I am going on vacation for a couple of weeks tomorrow, so will not be able to answer any questions until I get back.
I am going to try having Skennerton put me in touch with the owners of the early type carbines pictured in SAIS no. 7 and “The Broad Arrow” to see if their carbines are indeed serialed under 40, as I suspect. I’ll keep you posted.
Regards,
Coggansfield
<p>
11am
Re: Initial Results from NZ Carbine Survey
Fellas,
The NZ carbine series turned out very well. Thanks to all who helped out, particularly Ray in NZ, LeftBoot and John Sukey. I got one match out of it. One of the respondents had a bolt matched to another carbine on which I had information, though I was unable to get in touch with the owner of the latter.
As is common with Enfield studies, the survey raises more questions than it answers. The most awkward thing is that, very simply, my sample’s serial numbers imply that there were more than 1,500 of these things. It is an article of faith that no more than 1,500 were made, however.
Before moving to the details, here is my theory in summary:
• First batch of 1,000 shipped : all LEC generic types, serialed from 40-ish to 1040-ish. All accepted in 1901.
• Second batch of 500 shipped : all LEC I* types, serialed from 1041-odd to 1540-odd. All accepted in 1903.
• Strange serial numbered carbines 1548 and 1582 part of a different (supplemental?) contract.
I have full or partial information on 17 carbines — over one percent of the supposed total, which isn’t bad for a couple of days’ work. Of these 17, six are of the LEC generic, blank receiver type mentioned by Skennerton in “LES” (my shorthand for these is “purpose-built” NZ carbines, though that’s not strictly speaking accurate). Another ten are of the LEC I* receiver type. As for the remaining one, I did not get that information.
Before proceeding, let me clear up a couple of things. First, these things are technically speaking called “Lee-Enfield Carbine Fitted for the Pattern 1888 Bayonet.” That’s a mouthful, but keeping it in mind may help us remember that not every single one of these carbines may have gone to NZ, as Skennerton suggests on page 6 of SAIS no. 7. Here, he shows one built in a Lee-Metford carbine receiver and with no New Zealand marks at all. Likewise the back cover the Skennerton’s “Broad Arrow” shows one with a clearing rod! Presumably this is another early variant, also perhaps not part of the NZ contract. For reasons I’ll explain below, I think a handful of these early types — I think about 40 — may have been made before the commencement of the NZ contract. Some of these many have been made on LMC or LEC I receivers. On the other hand, all my survey responses were either LEC generic types or LEC I* types, and I think all the guns that went to New Zealand were of these two types.
Before moving to the controversial stuff, let’s examine the easy issues. First, I think all NZ contract carbines and other pattern 1888 bayonet carbines in general do in fact have their own serial numbers, series-specific numbers. I do not think the LEC I* types have “carry-over” serial numbers, preassigned before their being turned into NZ carbines, as is sometimes suggested. All the serial numbers in this survey were straight numeric numbers. There were no letter suffixes, ubiquitous on regular LEC mk. I* carbines. All my survey serial numbers, with the exception of one, ranged from the 1xx range to the 16xx range. In contrast, from other little surveys I have done, I have seen that as early as 1900, actual LEC I* carbines were issued in the 5xxxA and and then the 9xxxB serial number ranges. By 1903, they had advanced to the 5xxxD range. I do not think any actual LEC I* carbine made in 1903 would have had a 1xxx number with no letter suffix.
Pretty much by definition, the same goes for the generic LEC receivers. I am pretty sure all these have series-specific numbers.
But what do the serial numbers tell us about the number of carbines made? We were all brought up to believe that 1,500 — and only 1,500 — of these guns were made, and that they were all shipped to New Zealand (1,000 in 1901 and 500 in 1903). So exactly how many of these guns were made? Depending on what you read, either (a) 1,500 were manufactured or (b) 1,500 were ordered by the NZers, which is not necessarily the same thing at all, opening the way for there to have been more than 1,500 manufactured, with the others being for other contracts. It is an important question, because the range of serial numbers in my survey indicates a total of more than 1,500.
Of my sample of 17, I have serial numbers for all. The lowest is 191, an all-matching specimen, I believe, still in New Zealand of the generic-receiver type. It was manufactured in 1901 and has an acceptance date of 1901 too. Obviously, the starting serial number for the NZ contract was below this (I speculate about at about number 40 or 50 or so).
The highest serial number encountered is 7931, which is a mismatched bolt on a lower numbered carbine of the LEC I* type. This 7931 number is so out of sync with all the other serial numbers that I think it is reasonable to assume — and I hope no one’s feelings are hurt here — that it is a replacement bolt from a different series altogether, a cavalry carbine of some sort, I expect.
The next highest number is 1629, another mismatched bolt from a lower numbered LEC I* type. This may or may not be a replacement from a cavalry carbine. This 1629 number is not all that far off the 15xx range, of which I have a number of examples, so it may well be a genuine NZ carbine serial number. However, if is it a real NZ number, then this implies that well over 1,500 of these firearms were made. We know that the very first carbine is serialed “1” with an “A” suffix; it is in the Pattern Room. For there to have been 1,500 carbines made in total, the second carbine would have to have been numbered 130 (1629-1499=130), which is unlikely, to say the least. For this reason, I think — though with less certainty than in the case of bolt 7931 — that bolt 1629 must be a cavalry carbine replacement as well.
Once the survey responses were in, I grouped the serial numbers into clusters of a hundred (1-100, 101-200, etc.). Not counting the 7931 and 1629 anomalies, I have at least one example of something (either a receiver, barrel or bolt) in every cluster from 1 to 1600 except two. The clusters in which I have nothing are 1-100 and 801-900. (I did not track backsight numbers, as most people did not report these, and some NZ backsights have no number anyway).
For the clusters 101 to 800, I have six carbines — 191, 219, 271, 401, 680 and 782 (receiver serial numbers) — and all of these are of the generic-receiver type. All for were made in 1901 and all have a 1901 acceptance date. I also have bolts 356 and 570 in that same 101-800 grouping. Bring up the rear is bolt 959.
As for the LEC I* types, the lowest serial number is 1054. The ten I have are numbered thus: 1054, 1352, 1386, 1403, 1411, 1459, 1501, 1547, 1548 and 1582 (receiver serial numbers). In there also is 1299, which I assume to be an LEC I* type, though I do not know for certain. Five of the LEC I* types were made in 1902. Three of these were undoubtedly delivered in 1903; one I do not know as it has no acceptance date engraved on it; and one purports to have been delivered in 1905. In this mix is LEC I* type 1386, which was delivered in 1903; I do not have its manufacture year, but it probably is 1902, as it falls within several other 1902 guns (low 1054, high 1459).
The oddballs are the serial number 15xx carbines. Number 1501 is quite straightforward, made in 1903, though I do not have its delivery year. Number 1547 was made in 1903 and apparently was delivered in 1904.
As for 1548 and 1582, these are strange, both LEC I* types. Number 1548 has 1903 on the left side of the receiver (manufacture date), but a delivery date of 1901. What is more, it has a low rack number, 374. (All the other LEC I* types I have rack number for have numbers in the 1000-plus range). This carbine indeed has my fourth lowest rack number but my second highest serial number (excluding 1629 and 7931), which simply makes no sense whatsoever.
Number 1582 is almost as odd. It has a manufacture date of 1902, but a delivery date of 1901. I do not have a rack number for it.
What can we figure from all of this mess?
First, I suspect there are in fact only two types of NZ-contract carbines: (a) those built on LEC generic receivers and (b) those built on LEC I* receivers. I do not think any LEC I receivers were used and certainly no LMC receivers for the NZ contract specifically. Skennerton’s books show LMC types and mention LEC I types, but were they for the NZ contract? My guess is that they are pattern 1888 bayonet carbines for another contract.
Second, I suspect, though I am not certain, that all of the first batch of 1,000 carbines (the batch accepted in 1901) were LEC generic types. And I am pretty positive that all of the second batch of 500 carbines (the batch accepted in 1903) were LEC I* types.
I think the serial numbers of the first thousand LEC-generic types may have run from serial number 40-odd to 1040 or so. This would (a) allow for a few LMC I and LEC I types in the very low serial number range (2 to 39), while still (b) permitting the LEC I* 1903 batch to pick up at 1041. My survey includes LEC I* type 1054, so we know that by the mid-10xx range we are into the LEC I* types already. Though it claims to have been delivered in 1905, the information supplier got the gun’s info to me from a catalogue, not from actually seeing it. I think the person putting the catalogue together mistook the “3” for a “5,” so this is probably part of the 1903 batch of 500.s
This would bring the second 500 run to an end at about 1540, meaning that 1547 could indeed have been delivered in 1904 and that the bizarre 1548 and 1582 — both of them apparently delivered (1901) before they were made (1903 and 1902, respectively) — may be part of some other series beyond my ken to speculate on. The same may go for the otherwise inexplicable 1629 bolt. (As for bolt 7931, this is still so far off that I think it must be a replacement from another type of carbine.) I have in the past come across one other NZ carbine apparently delivered in 1904. It was an LEC I* type. It was an auction item on a New Zealand web site. Sadly, I did not save the blurb, so I have no further details.
I understand that all of the above is highly speculative, but I have tried my best to make sense of serial numbers that otherwise are illogical. If everything we have always believed about NZ carbines were true, the truth is that serial numbers 1501, 1547, 1548 and 1582 (not to mention 1629 and 7931) should not exist. But there they are, plain as day. We cannot even say that perhaps the first batch of 1,000 LEC-generic, 1901-delivered types started at serial number 100, because that would take us to 1,100. Then what are to do with carbine 1054, an LEC I* type delivered in either 1903 or 1905 but, either way, certainly not in 1901.
Nor can we say that perhaps the second batch of 500 LEC I* types ended at 1700, because, working backward, that would mean a starting point of 1200. Once again, what are we to make of carbine 1054 or bolt 1177? And if the second batch of 500 did start at 1200, then the first batch of 1,000 would have started at 200. Then what are we to make of carbine 191?
Do you see the problem? My theory, while only educated guesswork, gives us:
• 40-odd non-NZ early models, explaining Skennerton’s pals’ Lee-Metford receiver types.
• 1,000 LEC-generic types, running to about serial number 1040, explaining how 1054 can be an LEC I* type.
• 500 LEC I* types, running to about serial number 1540, explaining 1547 with its 1904 delivery date and explaining, or at least allowing us to ignore, the inexplicable carbines 1548 and 1582, both apparently delivered before they were built. If we can mentally reclassify these two as being part of some other contract, this also allows us to include bolt 1629.
All suggestions will be gratefully received. I am going on vacation for a couple of weeks tomorrow, so will not be able to answer any questions until I get back.
I am going to try having Skennerton put me in touch with the owners of the early type carbines pictured in SAIS no. 7 and “The Broad Arrow” to see if their carbines are indeed serialed under 40, as I suspect. I’ll keep you posted.
Regards,
Coggansfield
<p>
-
coggansfield
- Regular visitor
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:13 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
Re: Calling All NZ Carbine Owners
9 Apr. 2005
2am
Re: Further Results from NZ Carbine Survey
Folks,
We’re up to 19 NZ carbines in the database now. Also, Ian Skennerton graciously wrote me a response to a series of questions I e-mailed him last month. Here is where we stand.
First 1,000 carbines: I have data on seven carbines — low s/n 191; high s/n 782. All have LEC generic receivers.
Second 500 carbines: I have data on 12 carbines — low s/n 1054; high s/n 1582. All have LEC I* receivers. It will immediately be apparent to you that this is a spread of more than 500 (1582-1054=528), an oddity for which I have no immediate explanation other than to say that I think it has something to do with the very high numbered ones being replacements, as explained below.
(Note: the serial numbers cited above are barrel/receiver serial numbers. Among bolt serial numbers, there is a wider range but, at the same time, some may be replacements taken from other types of carbine, so I have not counted them here.)
The strange business of acceptance dates earlier than manufacture dates is explained by the fact that the “acceptance dates” are not in fact acceptance dates at all; rather, they are contract dates, as confirmed to me by another poster. All the carbines I have info on from s/n 1532 up (four in total) have this characteristic of a contract date earlier than the manufacture date (s/n 1501 may have this too, but I have been unable to contact the owner to get a contract date from him).
I believe these to be replacement carbines, sent out at the tail end of the second batch to replace items from the first batch lost or destroyed in the intervening couple of years. The two of them for which I have rack numbers have early rack numbers; my guess is they were assigned the former rack numbers of the lost weapons they were replacing. Skennerton’s letter confirms that there may have been some replacements at the end of the two standard orders (of 1,000 and 500).
He also confirms that there may have been some initial, sample carbines not part of the New Zealand contract. If true, this would support my earlier contention that the actual New Zealand carbines’ serial numbers started well above 2. I suggested at about 40 in my initial post and, to date, I have seen no evidence to discount this, though I will certainly do so if evidence to the contrary comes in.
A pal of Skennerton’s has one of these carbines, built on an LMC mk. I receiver and not for the NZ contract. I am going to write to him to see if I can get its serial number. I suspect it will have a very low serial number. We’ll see.
I’ll keep you posted.
Coggansfield
<p>
2am
Re: Further Results from NZ Carbine Survey
Folks,
We’re up to 19 NZ carbines in the database now. Also, Ian Skennerton graciously wrote me a response to a series of questions I e-mailed him last month. Here is where we stand.
First 1,000 carbines: I have data on seven carbines — low s/n 191; high s/n 782. All have LEC generic receivers.
Second 500 carbines: I have data on 12 carbines — low s/n 1054; high s/n 1582. All have LEC I* receivers. It will immediately be apparent to you that this is a spread of more than 500 (1582-1054=528), an oddity for which I have no immediate explanation other than to say that I think it has something to do with the very high numbered ones being replacements, as explained below.
(Note: the serial numbers cited above are barrel/receiver serial numbers. Among bolt serial numbers, there is a wider range but, at the same time, some may be replacements taken from other types of carbine, so I have not counted them here.)
The strange business of acceptance dates earlier than manufacture dates is explained by the fact that the “acceptance dates” are not in fact acceptance dates at all; rather, they are contract dates, as confirmed to me by another poster. All the carbines I have info on from s/n 1532 up (four in total) have this characteristic of a contract date earlier than the manufacture date (s/n 1501 may have this too, but I have been unable to contact the owner to get a contract date from him).
I believe these to be replacement carbines, sent out at the tail end of the second batch to replace items from the first batch lost or destroyed in the intervening couple of years. The two of them for which I have rack numbers have early rack numbers; my guess is they were assigned the former rack numbers of the lost weapons they were replacing. Skennerton’s letter confirms that there may have been some replacements at the end of the two standard orders (of 1,000 and 500).
He also confirms that there may have been some initial, sample carbines not part of the New Zealand contract. If true, this would support my earlier contention that the actual New Zealand carbines’ serial numbers started well above 2. I suggested at about 40 in my initial post and, to date, I have seen no evidence to discount this, though I will certainly do so if evidence to the contrary comes in.
A pal of Skennerton’s has one of these carbines, built on an LMC mk. I receiver and not for the NZ contract. I am going to write to him to see if I can get its serial number. I suspect it will have a very low serial number. We’ll see.
I’ll keep you posted.
Coggansfield
<p>