Milsurp After Hours

I've recently gotten hold of a copy of 'Rifle Training for War', by E Robinson, printed in 1940. at the very back of his book, there is the following section:

"The Mark 1 No. 4 Rifle: A few units have been issued with a 'mystery' rifle having an action similar to SMLE, but unlike that rifle in many particulars. This is the experimental rifle with which the British Army was to have been armed a few years ago. It takes the .303 cartridge and shoot very accurately. It has a blade foresight and an aperture backsight."

I'm intruiged by this, as I'd always been told that nomenclature had changed in the 1920's, and so the title was No4 Mk1. Is it just that the rifle was kept so much in mystery that he was a victim of Chinese whispers, or have I been misinformed? and when did they first issue the No4, as I believe it made general service in C.1941. who trialled it before that?

damn Skinnerton for not printing more copies of the Lee Enfield Story.

Nick

The nomenclature change you refer to I would assume was from the SMLE MkIII/MkIII* etc to the Rifle No1 MkIII/MkIII* etc in 1926.

The development of the No1 rifle continued through the 1920's and '30's. The No1 MkV was a troop trials rifle built and issued in the 1920's. The No1 MkVI was another trials rifle that eventually became the No1 Mk4. The change in designation occured in mid 1931 apparently.

The No1 MkIV was a conversion of MLM and MLE rifles to MKIII specifications.

I'm inclined to think your source is referring to the very early No4 MkI (not the No1 MkIV) trials rifles as about 2,500 had been produced and presumably were actually issued to troops. As to who they were issued to, I have no idea.

The No4 MkI as we know it wasn't issued in any numbers until 1942.

Confused ? So am I and I'm working from the book.

Its probably not suprising that the author would make a mistake in the terminology of the rifle: even today's media and servicemen frequently garble the correct designations for various small arms, and in Robinson's day there was no internet or other ready source of information. In his day, there were still millions of soldiers/shooters for whom Lee Enfields were still either "long" (LLE, CLLE) or "short" (SMLE) - adding the No4 Mk1 must have confused an entire generation!

The No4 Mk1 was probably still little-known and seen by few people by the time it went onto general issue: every shooting enthusiast and soldier would have probably known about or handled the No1 MkV (22,000 produced, trialled all over the world, specimens tested By Mr Fulton at Bisley, etc), but by contrast, only about 3,000 No1 MkVI of all types were produced, and their distribution was limited to the Small Arms School at Hythe and other trials establishments. The No4 appears to have gone more or less direct from prototype into production.

http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL605/23 ... 116374.jpg[/pic]

brewstop, Seeing a picture of a No.4 w/cutoff always makes me think that in my first glace I must've been cross-eyed! Lovely rifle. Does it have the hinged upper band?

Regards, Brad

bradtx wrote:brewstop, Seeing a picture of a No.4 w/cutoff always makes me think that in my first glace I must've been cross-eyed! Lovely rifle. Does it have the hinged upper band?

Regards, Brad

That would have been either a No 1 Mk VI or an A series No4 Mk1, they were recycled post dunkirk and issued an A series number due to lack of common parts interchangability. I dont have anything to hand whether it was aa suffix or prefix but they were well made and the 2 I havehandled looked lovely!

The refurbished/reissued No1 MkVI and Trials No4 tend to have an "A" prefix and and an "A" suffix: most rifle prototypes at that time were numbered using an "A" prefix - the exception being the No1 MkVs which have alternating number sequences with and without an "A" (they were probably produced in different batches with minor variations for trials purposes). My rifle is a 1933 No4 Mk1 numbered A 0954.

When the MkVIs and Trials No4s were FTR'd for war service in 1940/1, an "A" suffix was added to any rifle that had non-"production standard" parts fitted - the idea being to alert any unit armourer who was wondering why a replacement part would not fit. One example is the early type of rearsight - it has a spring-and-ball locking mechanism like a No1 MkV instead of the spring-and-plunger which we are familiar with on normal No4s. Some of the prototype No4s had a firing pin locked into the cocking piece by a cross-bolt, etc. It seems quite a few rifles avoided the FTR process, as they do not have the "A" suffix - as with mine. It is recorded that "A" suffix rifles were ordered to be backloaded for destruction after WW2, which is why the few that survive are of such interest to collectors.

My rifle is a restoration project. It does indeed have the "wavy" front sight protector, hinged front band and narrow-pattern stacking swivel. The wood is replacement, though actually the correct make and shape for the 1933 rifles. The one important part I am missing is the correct rearsight (the one on the rifle is a standard Mk1 ground to accept the ball and spring, as the receiver does not have room to fit the later plunger): sadly, these are "collectors items" and unobtainable at any price. I know one chap in US who has four of these, but he'd rather keep them in a box instead of selling one to go on an actual rifle...

http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL605/23 ... 367135.jpg[/pic]

http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL605/23 ... 367129.jpg[/pic]

brewstop, Thanks for the time and effort...very enjoyable!

Regards, Brad

Nice rifle intresting post thanks.