How about a Long Lee Enfield

[Tom-May]

no , with the LE I marking its definetly a Lee Enfield , the Metford marking would be be LM and
refers to the rifling of the barrel more than anything else

Minor correction: Lee Metford rifles were not marked "LM". They simply had the mark number: I, I*, II, or II*. When the Lee Enfield was introduced in 1895, they began marking them LE plus the mark number.

Lee Metfords are sometimes mistaken for Lee Enfields because they could be marked "Enfield" below the crown and above the date...but this just means they were made at RSAF Enfield (rather than B.S.A. & M., L.S.A. or Sparkbrook)...they are not Lee Enfields unless they say LE.

I sem to recall reading somewhere that many Lee-Metfords were rebarrelled with Enfield rifled barrels, as a stop gap during the rapid expansion of the Army during the early years of the Great War; these were remarked as L-Es.

I have absolutely no further information and no references, just a vague feeling that I'd read it somewhere.

Tom

[DuncaninFrance]

Here you are Tom, page 449, 2007 Skennerton


[Scan of page from book removed by site admin because of copyright objection.]

[TomcatPC]

Thanks for posting the photos. I hope to have a Victorian era Lee-Metford or Lee-Enfield Rifle one of these days.
Mark

[Jc5]

DuncaninFrance,

I know you are trying to help and pass along useful information. I appreciate that you are acknowledging the source of information and recommending it.

However, it's not really polite to Skennerton to post a page from his book without his permission. After all, he spent many years and a lot of money to gather this info and publish his book. People who need that information should do the honorable thing and buy his book. It is one thing to quote from his book...but to actually reproduce a page is a bit of an infringement.

For example, it's no secret on other Lee Enfield forums that I am writing a book on the commercial Lee Metfords and Lee Enfields, an effort into which I have sunk a lot of time and money. I would hope that people buy the book---out of respect, not for profit (because no one makes any profit on books unless you have "Harry Potter" in the title, and that's a fact)--- rather than seeing its pages posted to the internet.

Public domain sources (of which there are many, such as government publications and small arms manuals) are a different matter.

If Ian condones the uploading of pages from his book, then OK. Otherwise, I would encourage you to refrain from doing so.

Best,
JC

[DuncaninFrance]

I would hope that people buy the book---out of respect, not for profit

I did buy the book and the actual page posted is posted for information only - not profit.

[Niner]

Here is a link to the Fair Use law as the US sees it. I'd say in a court case it would likely be found to cause no injury to the author......however, since an issue has been made of it I'll go along with JC.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

It looks like, if you follow the linked site information, that if Duncan just posted the information as though he had it all neatly stored in his head, and gave no reference at all, it would all be perfectly alright. He would only be reporting what he would be able to obtain by observation and contact with others who are in the know about the subject.

I'd think the author would love to see the reference here in that it should help him sell more books. But I have no idea what the author thinks about it and will take JC's judgement for him being injured by the scan being allowed to remain.

Oh, JC......if you publish your book why not use one of those Amazon publishing things....you know...they print them off one at a time as somebody orders one or they sell it to kindle users for download. That would have to be all profit. No vanity press stuff involved with money up front.

[Jc5]

Duncan, I know you bought the book and I respect your honest desire to help. But posting entire pages online makes it less likely that others will need to buy the book.

It is fine to quote from a book (even an extended quote), but this is different than posting a scanned page. It might be legal to post it, but it would be more polite to email Skennerton and ask him what he thinks. It is his hard work and his product that is being freely distributed. On page 4 of his book, it says very clearly that no portion may be reproduced without the author's written permission. If Ian says it's OK, then obviously I have no problem with it.

That's just my humble opinion. I don't think anyone is being malicious here. I know we're all just trying to help each other. No hard feelings, OK?

...

As for the Amazon tip, that's a good option for saving on printing costs. However, the major costs (as I'm sure Ian or any other author will agree) are the years of research, finding and buying expensive source material, traveling to places where records are held, and of course the time involved. I doubt that anyone writing about guns ever recovers these expenses.

[DuncaninFrance]

Perhaps it would help if I explained something with regard to the use of other peoples material and copyright.

I have always understood that the use of 'copied' material for teaching and/or research was acceptable and the following link sets out some detailed information on the subject.

http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/p ... 29-86.html

But posting entire pages online makes it less likely that others will need to buy the book.

I posted one page, specifically to confirm what Peter had thought he had seen somewhere. In no way do I feel that this one page would prevent the sale of one copy of the book, it being 608 pages long. (I paid over £50 for my copy plus somewhat less for his The British Sniper)

As a photographer, copyright is important to me too and I therefore do not look to infringe others rights. The use of the page was as set out above and no more.

[Niner]

I had the entire content of a website stolen from me once and incorporated into another site. It was a pretty large body of material too and there was no reference at all much less a thank you. I was pretty angry about it then, and still am when I allow myself to think about it....but.....it would have cost more than it was worth to punish the guilty and a lot of people that were bystanders would have been drawn into it. Not worth the hassle or expense.

Whatever the inocent reasons of posting the scan of the page I think it is probably enough for the author to put up a legal objection if he wished to do so. And I have no wish to have to defend myself and my site because somebody posts the content of someone elses published words as an educational response. I think posting images of pages from any in print publication, not in the public domain, is a thing we should not do as a general rule.

[Jc5]

You guys both make good points and I understand where you're coming from. But why all this talk of copyright, injury, legal defense, and so on? I don't think we're in that territory. I raised the issue simply as a matter of courtesy to a living author. I have no stake in this myself. If a book explicitly says "please no reproduction without the author's permission," then the polite thing is to email the guy and ask if it's OK. That's all I'm saying.

Duncan, the link to the Univ of California copyrighted material policy really doesn't apply here. (I know it is meant to show that your intentions were good and in the spirit of fair use, but I never questioned your intentions. I know that you were just trying to help a guy who asked a question). I don't know what the UC policy is nowadays, but the linked policy is from 1986, before the World Wide Web. In 1986 a professor could photocopy some pages and students would probably mark them up, spill beer on them, and toss them when the semester ended. Today, when something is posted online, it instantly belongs to the entire world, forever---it is infinitely reproducible.